Class Warfare, Or, It's About The Hypocrisy

The Anonymous Liberal explains why conservatives are sympathetic to Jake DeSantis of AIG but did not rally round the UAW workers when they were urged to make contract concessions or try their luck with a bankruptcy judge - it's because Jake is a more engaging conversationalist and the UAW guys smell funny.  Or something:

It's striking to me that the very same people who are outraged by DeSantis's treatment showed no sympathy at all for the nation's autoworkers. In fact, they were angrily demanding that these workers (who make a small fraction of what DeSantis makes) agree to give up their "luxurious" health benefits and agree to salary reductions. These workers too had been promised things by their employers, but their complaints fell on deaf, even hostile ears. If their companies were going to be saved by taxpayer money (at a fraction of the cost of bailing out AIG), well these workers were just going to have to suck it up and take the hit.

The fact that the plight of a millionaire executive (one who actually received his promised bonus) elicits such sympathy from the Right, but the plight of blue collar assembly line workers doesn't says a lot about the ideological prism through which many conservatives view the world. They simply identify with DeSantis in a way they don't with many of the other victims of this recession.

For heaven's sake - is there any chance this is a pubic policy debate rather than an episode of Oprah?  .  We are not offered links to these right wing thinkers so we can't evaluate his evidence.  However, Memeorandum offers plenty of reaction.  Without excerpting them, I will characterize Ed Morrissey, Mark Steyn as focusing  the public policy implications; Michele Malkin deplores the incitement of mob rule.

If the theorizing of the Anon Lib is correct he ought to be able to produce plenty of cites documenting conservative support for the management of General Motors and Chrysler, since surely they are the sort of plutocrats with whom conservatives can identify.  Does anyone remember it that way?  I do not (George Will describes the GM management as "mendicant", but maybe that is meant as a term of endearment.)

As to the UAW, here is a headline - conservatives are opposed to unions and have considered the UAW to be part of the Detroit's problem rather than Detroit's solution for at least three decades. And contrary to progressive fantasy that opposition to unions is not because conservatives revel in the oppression of the working class.  The function of unions is to restrict employment and drive up wages; a predictable consequence of their workplace rules is a reduction in productivity.  Fewer jobs at sub-optimal productivity is not a recipe for economic growth.  In other words, unions are not about growing the proverbial economic pie; they are about re-slicing a smaller pie in their favor.

And sadly, this is not just theory.  Old Europe  is heavily unionized.  It has a difficult time attracting investment, does not create jobs, and cannot absorb immigrants.  An America that looked like Europe would no longer be the Land of Opportunity and we would have to close our borders (Krugman got roasted by progressives when, in a rare deviation from lib orthodoxy, he made a related point three years ago.)

Pressing on, I wouldn't say conservatives supported Mr. DeSantis of AIG because he is a swell guy they would like to have over for dinner.  The public policy question is whether the US financial system can be salvaged after Congress caps the pay in every TARP recipient at $250,000, which is well below historical Wall Street norms. 

Let me recycle this example - imagine Citigroup has a very profitable foreign exchange group with traders making several hundred million dollars for Citigroup and taking home several million dollars for themselves.  Is the US taxpayer better off if those traders leave and Citigroup and work elsewhere?  Even if you think the answer is "yes" (I could be convinced, as regards a new class of highly-regulated "public utility" banks anyway) the subject merits a lot more than the twenty minutes of debate the House gave it.  And since Obama himself is currently drifting away from the House bill, it is hard to explain the opposition entirely in terms of class consciousness.  Maybe opponents of the bill who thought it would be disastrous public policy were just, dare we say it, right?

Which leaves us where?  The Anon Lib will want to buttress his "class solidarity" theory by demonstrating conservative support for GM management, and good luck with that.  He willl want to familiarize himself with the economic reasons conservatives oppose unions in order to opine sensibly on the motivations of union opponents.  And he willl want to explore Obama's emerging class consciousness as a member of the oppressive elite opposed to the House Rage Tax.

Or he will want to chuck this weak theory overboard.

[end of thread]

Comments

[PD]

I think this is more prevalent than a lot of people realize.

My company was bought last year. I don't think I was a "must have" like Extraneous, but I guess I was at least a "want to have" because part of my offer letter included bonuses to be paid after one and two years' service. I recently received the first one.

Maybe not a "retention bonus" in the same sense as DeSantis, but yes, these are not uncommon agreements.

And I wouldn't be happy to have the Feds decide to retroactively take 90% instead of the 25% they did take.

[Pofarmer]

Po-

The Bonus Operandi of AIG-FP is just that, modus operandi of the financial system, as it WAS, of the greater Tri-state area. Call it Pay-to-Play writ large, you make them money, they pay you at year end, when we settle up the accounts.

For them, That is normal. I used to play in that world, and got paid, and NOT paid, the exact same way.

Happier now.

Yeah, I know it's normal, it just ain't right. We've got folks controlling our financial system who can't be trusted at their word. That's sad. Just call me a bumpkin.

[MayBee]

Bonus Operandi

Love that!

[Pofarmer]

The deal was made, but you would rip it up like so much trash. I'm not impressed with your grasp of the importance of rule of law.

And now you're bashing this DeSantis guy.

He's calling out upper management for a lack of honesty and commitment.

Are people having reading comprehension problems?

[mel]

I'm not going to play that game, because it's a different one. That's all. Trusting people is a risk at everything you do, so put down the 4" brush, and trust me in saying it isn't that clean or as simple as you'd like it (and me, for that matter) to be.

I'd rather be throwing 80# bales for six or seven figures, but I haven't quite found the person who's willing to pay me to do that magnificently. How's it going on your end? (See what I mean?, but I do get what you mean, just realize that it's different for other places and people.

Gotta go, night all.

[Pofarmer]

And it's not just then, either. I was once involved in a sale of a company's division into a joint-venture, and the buyers, a big-revenue company, required that the selling company assure them that a certain set of people wouldn't bolt. I happened to have been one of these "must-haves," and was asked to sign a contract assuring them that I'd stay. In return, they committed to a retention bonus, just to make sure.

I think this is more prevalent than a lot of people realize.

That's awesome for you. Great, in fact.

Had the company just been taken over by the Feds and ingested a HUNDRED BILLION or so taxpayer dollars? While having a CEO seated who, apparently, actually is working for $1?

[Pofarmer]

Trusting people is a risk at everything you do, so put down the 4" brush, and trust me in saying it isn't that clean or as simple as you'd like it (and me, for that matter) to be.

I think that works both ways in this deal.

Night mel.

[Pofarmer]

This may be a dead thread now, don't know. But folks need to realize something. It's EASY for me to demonize traders. How many of you folks work in a position where the price of your output and the cost of your inputs are largely out of your control? I mean, you can lock in a range, for a price, but, overall, the prices are set by the big money boys in Chicago who trade in volumes and dollars almost beyond comprehension, with, apparently, no realization that thier actions affect real people. I mean, we're STILL dealing with the hangover from $6 and $7 corn last summer. How? Because input prices followed it up, have largely hung, and now we're dealing with $4 corn, with a good growing season maybe $3 corn. You can take steps to control the risk, but you can't eliminate it. I know glasater was involved in ag, as was mel. Don't get me wrong, it's great lifestyle and a great job, if maybe not the one with the greatest remuneration, but, realize that we're seeing folks from the opposite side of the coin. The big money boys moving around billions of $ on a whim need to be aware that their actions have consequences, besides the size of their bonus. That's probably way too much to ask for.

[Extraneus]

Well I can understand that, Po, and I wasn't bragging earlier, just trying to add another example that I was familiar with. The thing is, there are different types of bonuses. Most are based on the company's performance. "Make us a lot of money, and we'll share some with you." When the company loses money, these bonuses are reduced or eliminated. This is why they exist, to provide the company this flexibility rather than forcing them to do layoffs every time there's a contraction. This guy's bonus wasn't like this, it was simply a "stay until next year and you get paid; leave and you don't." Just unfair to retroactively change a deal like that, regardless of the company's performance.

[bad]

Po, Obama used a hang-in-there bonus system with his kids. If they hung in there for two years of campaigning, they'd get a dog.

[sbw]

This would be a great time to paint a picture in New Yorkers' minds that Cuomo is nothing but a thug.

I painted it in words.

[bad]

I painted it in words.

I'll bet it's lovely...

[Extraneus]

Where at, sbw? I just read the last few rs editorials, and didn't see it on your casual blog.

[Jane]

Well I can understand that, Po, and I wasn't bragging earlier, just trying to add another example that I was familiar with.

Extraneous,

One of my best friends has been in a company that was taken over 3 times in about 3 months. At each new takeover he was named as one of the important people that had to be retained - like you. And each time they sweeten the pot. (If you stay 2 years we will give you 6 bonuses - one every 4 months, each one bigger than the last.)

It makes it very hard to leave, which of course is the point.

[sbw]

Extraneous, sorry about that. Our editor put it in the wrong category and it wasn't uploaded to the web. I've corrected that.

Since Typhuspad won't accept my link, I've put it LUN [Link Under Name].

[Extraneus]

Excellent, sbw.