Wells Fargo cancels Vegas retreat

[3D NC fan]

From MSN money news:

Wells Fargo cancels ritzy Las Vegas retreat
Posted Feb 04 2009, 06:59 AM by Kim Peterson

Why don't banks hold executive retreats at some place like the Hyatt Regency Wichita? I'm sure Wichita is a beautiful place, and holds none of the indulgent excess of, say, 12 nights at the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas.

The Wynn is where Wells Fargo had booked rooms for a dozen nights to reward its top employees and their guests. But after suffering intense criticism for the move -- Wells Fargo did get $25 billion in taxpayer money, after all -- the company abruptly canceled the event Tuesday.

At first, Wells Fargo defended the junket as an annual tradition. Previous trips have included private Jimmy Buffett concerts, horseback riding, wine tasting and gifts laid on pillows, the Associated Press reports. But as time went by, Wells found it harder to justify the expense.

So once again we witness a culture clash between Wall Street and the real world. Banks like Merrill Lynch have been pummelled for awarding huge bonuses to employees at a time when the taxpayers are bailing out the sector. Citigroup was loudly criticized for ordering a $50 million luxury jet for executive travel.

And they give the same chorus of response when asked about it: This is just the way things are done. Top executives get rewarded for bringing the company business. Bonuses are a way of life, an incentive that helps a worker make more money for the company. All-expense-paid casino trips would have never made the headlines before the bailouts.

But the bailouts are a reality, and taxpayers are suddenly paying attention to how banks and other companies spend their money. Lavish corporate retreats are out, as are lavish jets. Anything that even seems remotely excessive is off-limits -- even if the companies argue that no bailout money is being used to pay the bills.

It's a new world for bailout companies, and employees who have grown accustomed to splashy corporate perks cannot be happy about that.

[Pouye]

From MSN money news:

Wells Fargo cancels ritzy Las Vegas retreat
Posted Feb 04 2009, 06:59 AM by Kim Peterson

Why don't banks hold executive retreats at some place like the Hyatt Regency Wichita? I'm sure Wichita is a beautiful place, and holds none of the indulgent excess of, say, 12 nights at the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas.

The Wynn is where Wells Fargo had booked rooms for a dozen nights to reward its top employees and their guests. But after suffering intense criticism for the move -- Wells Fargo did get $25 billion in taxpayer money, after all -- the company abruptly canceled the event Tuesday.

At first, Wells Fargo defended the junket as an annual tradition. Previous trips have included private Jimmy Buffett concerts, horseback riding, wine tasting and gifts laid on pillows, the Associated Press reports. But as time went by, Wells found it harder to justify the expense.

So once again we witness a culture clash between Wall Street and the real world. Banks like Merrill Lynch have been pummelled for awarding huge bonuses to employees at a time when the taxpayers are bailing out the sector. Citigroup was loudly criticized for ordering a $50 million luxury jet for executive travel.

And they give the same chorus of response when asked about it: This is just the way things are done. Top executives get rewarded for bringing the company business. Bonuses are a way of life, an incentive that helps a worker make more money for the company. All-expense-paid casino trips would have never made the headlines before the bailouts.

But the bailouts are a reality, and taxpayers are suddenly paying attention to how banks and other companies spend their money. Lavish corporate retreats are out, as are lavish jets. Anything that even seems remotely excessive is off-limits -- even if the companies argue that no bailout money is being used to pay the bills.

It's a new world for bailout companies, and employees who have grown accustomed to splashy corporate perks cannot be happy about that.

And what's wrong with this trip? If they don't go, they will not spend money. Staying in hotels cost money, and stimulates the economy. Car rentals are good for the economy. Buying gifts is also good for the economy. Actually, the more the rich party (as long as they party in the USA), the better off our economy will be. My sister-in-law works as a server in a high-dollar, ritzy dining club (Teatro Zinzanni). When the rich come to play, they drop lots of money, and she lives on the mostly the tips. When the rich not longer come and play, she will be out of a job.

Punishing the rich makes people feel good who aren't rich, but it is really shooting yourself in the foot if you are poor. Putting caps on how much people can make (like Obama's $500,000 wage cap for certain bank executives) does not help the economy, but hinder it. Communist countries control wages of professionals, and many of them have fled their home countries to come to the USA so they can make as much money as they can make.

I will say it right now: It is foolish to think that capping private industry wages and punishing the rich is going to help our country. Those are communist principles that DO NOT WORK.

Rock

[3D NC fan]

I believe the point was that the company is taking bailout money from the government and yet they were continuing "business as usual" with this lavish retreat for top employees.

[Pouye]

I believe the point was that the company is taking bailout money from the government and yet they were continuing "business as usual" with this lavish retreat for top employees.

I understand your point, and I agree with it -- that it doesn't send a good message to the public, nor to the employees who are "closer to the bottom of the food chain" (the ones who are doing most of the real work!).

My point was I don't resent the rich spending money, but I do believe that private company owners and executives often do not distribute business profits fairly. But I'm not the one to make them do it fairly (nor is the government), and I'm not the one to tell them how to spend their money (nor is the government).

In economies, fairness and mediocrity are best friends.

Rock

[3D NC fan]

Thanks for your response, Rock. I don't have a problem with the rich spending money either, but agree with you that top executives often don't distribute the profits equitably to the "worker bees". I think the public currently has no tolerance for business executives receiving large bonuses and extravagant perks when many people are losing their jobs.

[HumanityisSaved]

Thanks for your response, Rock. I don't have a problem with the rich spending money either, but agree with you that top executives often don't distribute the profits equitably to the "worker bees". I think the public currently has no tolerance for business executives receiving large bonuses and extravagant perks when many people are losing their jobs.

"Worker bees" do not deserve an equal share of profits.

[Pouye]

"Worker bees" do not deserve an equal share of profits.

Actually, nobody "deserves" anything. It doesn't have anything to do with what people deserve, but everything to do about what people (consumers) will pay and what people (goods/service providers) decide to do with the money they make.

For instance, let's take a doctor. They go to school for many years (some have rich parents that float that boat for them, but some work their way through college -- but either way it costs moola). They start "practicing" (I love that term for medical services!) and people (consumers of their services) pay them money for their expertise. It isn't that the doctor deserves to make big buck, but rather he/she has done the things necessary to offer a service people (or insurance companies, etc.) are willing to pay for.

A doctor (if he or she is working as most doctor's do) has a tough job. A doctor usually makes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for an income, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to someone who might write a hit song and sell several million albums, get TV commercial time, etc. The Hanson Brothers wrote Mmmbop and they make more than any doctor I know -- and they didn't need college, either -- no exams, text books, being on call, etc.

Is it fair? Sure. It is based on what people will pay for, not on what people deserve. If it were based on what people deserve, the hardest working people would get the most money (either physically hard, mentally hard, highest stress, etc.). Mom's raising lots of kids would be in the top tier, making billions a year.

When a person says to me that another person doesn't deserve to "make that much money", I like to ask them what determines what one person deserves over another person. It is interesting to see what people say about that. Almost everyone thinks they deserve more than they are getting!

Rock