Bank of America announced it would be cutting bonuses for top company executives this year. They must have realized you shouldn’t not reward someone for losing tons of money. [NYT]


Edit Your Comment

  1. vladthepaler says:

    You shouldn’t not reward someone? Will you guys PLEASE hire a proofreader?

  2. Charybdis says:

    …shouldn’t not…

    So are you advocating bonuses for poor performance, or are you confused by double negatives?

  3. Charybdis says:


    Even Open Office would have caught this one. From past performance I would suspect they’re using Notepad as their word editor.

  4. DeepFriar says:

    Pay for Performance, baby

  5. ahwannabe says:

    It wasn’t not funny!

  6. char says:

    @DeepFriar: Eliot spitzer agrees with this sentiment.

  7. rhombopteryx says:

    “cutting bonuses”

    Reading the article, they’re still throwing exorbitant wads of cash at senior executives, but just fewer wads this year than usual.

  8. Crymson_77 says:

    They should cut any bonuses to executives, period. Their pay should be based on the performance of the company with a standard minimum. All those huge bonuses? Give ’em to the people that keep you in a job!

    (Wonder what that would do for customer service, huh?)

  9. HawkWolf says:

    I guess being an executive insulates you from reality. It seems like the idea of an incorporated company is to keep a company failure from taking down the personal lives of the people inside it. Executive bonuses and golden parachutes for dismal CEOs are a good example of where the idea of a corporation fails. If you drive a company into the ground, you made a mistake. In your personal life, making that kind of mistake hurts, and maybe even hurts you irreparably. Maybe people would learn their lessons if they were actually hurt when they contribute to destroying the economy, instead of staying in their money bubble.

  10. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @vladthepaler: What’s sad is, Consumerist is average-to-good as far as Gawker sites go.