AIG Bonuses linked to retention, not performance – npr.org
I’m not going to pretend I know anything about any of this, so I’ll start with that. But even in my simple understanding, I was on the bandwagon of boo-ing the AIG bonuses… until I heard this story. This guy – whoever he is – succinctly explains the bonuses in question as retention bonuses, and clearly defines what this means. Essentially, certain employees were asked to stay on at the company despite its declining state, and were promised bonuses if they stayed a certain amount of time. These bonuses were not attached to performance, according to this guy, but to a contractual obligation of employment. AIG didn’t want to lose key people during tough times. The employees fulfilled their obligations, and therefore received the bonuses.
Again, I really have no clue about economics, but this seems reasonable to me in theory. I mean, if a guy really didn’t want to be there, but he was promised money to stay, don’t you think it would kind of suck to stay and then not get the money you were promised if you stayed? Yeah, I know AIG got bailout money, and we tax payers are now holding the bag. But geez, the guy was just following through.
Seems like the government and the media are hyping everyone up. Thoughts?
Economy Puts Focus on Family Planning – NPR.org
I find this to be a very interesting story on many levels, and I’m sure at some point I’ll expand this into an entire blog post. I am not pro-choice. Neither am I pro-life. I am anti-abortion. I recognize the decision to abort is difficult and tragic, and though abortion grieves me, I refuse to villianize the people behind these decisions. I’m putting this up here so I remember it, and come back to it another time with more in-depth thoughts. Any comments?
An abrupt change of subject – dooce.com
All I’m going to say is: I can relate. I wish I couldn’t, but I do.