This is insane. The older I get, the more I hate the world. Apparently Citibank had a program that would check their customer's credit card accounts for positive balances. IE, someone accidentally paid too much so their account has, say, an extra $5 in it. This program just took the money and put it in Citibank's account. That, to me, is theft. There is no way it can be anything else.

story:
http://consumerist.com/5045056/citibank ... r-a-decade

They got caught by a whistle blower after running the program for 10 years.

That IS f**king hilarious! Funny stuff topic has room for it. Poor guy on the other side.

[quote]n the words of a Citibank executive, “Stealing from our customers is a business decision, not a legal decision.â€

I love it how they're justifying it as if it's normal. And that executive bonus pool can be downsized quite a bit if you ask me. Lots of manager types make RIDICULOUS amounts of money, way way way too much.

I'm not talking about higher middle management peeps who make great wages but nothing astronomical -more power to them. I'm talking about the top management types who earn millions and millions a year and when they get laid off get bonuses of several millions. Seriously, you try explaining to someone who isn't in the 'top layer' how getting fired is a good thing? It is for those guys. They just get hired by the next corporation for a million-dollar wage. It's a closed circuit of people boosting each other's wages to crazy heights.

Seriously, people can make a lot of money for all I care. But there comes a point where the amount of money one earns is completely out of sync with the amount of work they can put in. Simply because there are only 24 hours in a day, beit for a worker or a top manager. There's no basis at all for discrepancies of up to x1000 times bigger wages between the two.

Before you ask; yes movie stars and musicians and sports stars make astronomical wages too. Wages that can be cut down imho. But I find there is still a difference with top managers, as these people are in the entertainment industry. It's supply and demand. But top managers? They're bloated egomaniacs who spend more time networking, travelling and sitting in a meeting than actually working. Lame.

The final argument is that they could be 'more capable' and should be paid accordingly. Alas, studies have shown that middle management people are on average smarter than top managers. So much for that theory.


/end rant

I dont want to sound like im defending these people and i am not but can you honestly say you understand the work they do or the effort. You are taking quite a bit of liberty speaking about something you have no experience or background information on.

I saw and met a few of the top men of Accenture when I was working there. Like Bill Green.

http://www.accenture.com/Global/About_A ... DGreen.htm

Anyway, I'm not saying they don't work hard. I'm saying that their wages are completely out of proportion with what they do. Which is, travelling, making decisions, doing PR-like things (representing the company) and so forth. Making decisions is the core of their job, and it's a tough job. I'm not disputing that. But if they make bad decisions, they get fired. And get a lot of money and move on to another job where they make a lot of money. If they get fired 20 times in a row, sure, they'll have problems getting hired. But on the whole, not a lot of risk is involved.

Besides, there are alot of people (economists, that is) who seriously doubt the impact of changing higher management. They even come to the conclusion that top managers are more defined by how well their company does, than the other way around (that is, the company does better/worse depending on the manager).

Look at it like this: top management is represented in the board of directors. The board of directors decideds on the wages of all the employees - including themselves. It's just like politicians voting on a wage rise for members of parliament, only the top managers don't have an electorate to take into account. They only answer to the (major) shareholders who, incidentally, are a part of their whole caroussel.


Oh and let me just say that I make a distinction between people like Bill Gates (who is, at his core, an entrepreneur) and 'top managers'. Entrepeneurs are the heart of our economies and deserve all the respect and success and money they earn. People who slide into management at, say, General Electric without having to take a risk in their life yet are making millions...yeah. They suck.

Ok i made the assumption you put entr... into the same boat as top managers. But considering the amount of companies, the stealing and making more money than they should is in my opinion not a general rule. And they do take risks but its with other people money.

I was talking about the big corporations, not the smaller ones. They tend to be more realistic about wages as they cannot just afford to throw millions out of the window. Seriously though, imagine what a company could do if they even halved the wages of their top managers. I'm pretty damn sure that production can be improved better by investing money in the work conditions etc than by paying your top manager more.

About the risks...how much of a risk is it if it's not their money? It's only a risk for the company, not for them. So I don't see why they should be paid so much for their 'risky decisions'.

One good thing. In Serbia, if you pay for, say, electrical energy more than your actual bill is, then the extra money is being transferred for the next month's bill. Pretty sane solution.

Still I am not sure whether this is organized by the company that provides electrical energy or by the bank.

That's actually the way it's supposed to be.. and the way most companies treat it. Over payments are either applied to the next bill, or refunded.

Anyway, I have mixed emotions about Ox's rant. I agree that some of these mega-corps overpay their top management. Like American Airlines getting federal support money but paying their CEO millions. That's my tax money. The recent bailout of the housing market REALLY gets my goat... I want a strict accounting of all the money they make. In my opinion, they just became a public company that every tax payer in the US has stock in.

Anyway, blah... the higher I moved in management (when I was in management) the less work I did and the more money I made. It was pathetic.

So, what you're saying is that I'm right, only that you wouldn't mind getting paid that kind of money?

As for tax payer's money, that's even more of a sham yeah. It's actually kind of surprising that the US government seems to intervene (relatively) often when it comes to failing public or semi-public (airways) services. I can only recall that happening once in Belgium during my lifetime, and I would think we have more government interference and/or less of a capitalistic streak than the US.

But even if it's not directly coming out of your pocket (ie government bailing out companies) it still indirectly affects you and others who work and are relatively well off. Excess of money going to the top = less money for the bottom = more working poor = more welfare costs. I know, I know, creating better working and living conditions isn't going to stop people from living on the edge of society. There's always the group of incorrectable retards who believe that selling crack on a streetcorner or just relying on welfare is a grand lifestyle. But I do believe you can minimize losses and pull people out of the circles of generational poverty.


On a less related note, did anyone ever read the book Freakonomics? It's really entertaining. One chapter goes in on the economy of drug sales by your typical street gang. Somewhat surprisingly, the economic structure turned out to be very similar to that of a McDonalds: a broad basis of peeps who barely make any money, and a small top who take in loads. The difference, however, was that at a McDonalds you weren't quite as likely to get shot or arrested. So, basically, 'footsoldiers' made a laughable living practicing a job that had a much higher mortality rate than any 'real' job (like lumberjacking). Retards.

heh... regarding the payment of management, my pay wasn't insanely high ever. I did less work and made more money, yes, but in order to get there I had to do my time and learn my shit in my previous positions. So, even though I didn't necessarily work all that hard, I did earn the position. As you go higher up the management chain, qualifications matter less and politics more. But not always. Some really big companies have truly talented and intelligent people running them.

Heh, hate the politics. And I hope my rants don't read as if there are NO talented or deserving people at the top. I'm just saying that the superhigh wages of the top managers in big companies are way out there. Completely overrated.

Did you ever read The Black Swan? It's a masterpiece on probability, economics and philosophy. The author is a Wall Street trader with a wide experience, and he also touches on the subject of succesful business and entertainment people. I'm not going to explain the entire idea behind it here, but in essence he says that above all else, luck is the determining factor behind these successes. But that does not mean that it is the only factor.

Basically, he says that if you take a sample group of a 1000 traders, and halve it every year, you will inevitably end up with 1 person who has made all the right decisions and choices over those 50 years. Does that mean this person is necessarily better at what he did or does? Not really. Yet we look at these people for tips and pointers for success, for some sort of unifying theory that connects them all, in order to find a formula or a lifestyle to follow. We don't see the 999 who fail, we see the one who succeeds.


Anyway, his argument is much more refined and encompassing than that. I can only wholeheartedly recommend the book to you, it's a riveting read.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact ... 1400063515

Dammit ox you're gonna start me on a rant, stop it! I'll just go into the brief version here: anyone earning more than, say, a million a year, is earning far too much. No one needs that much money to live. As for which professions get paid lots, that's screwed beyond belief.

Anyhoo... I'd be surprised at citibank... but really I'm not. People are greedy bastards, particularly those with lots of money already. They coulda been a little smarter though and just sent letters out everytime they stole money at least claiming that someone else had paid it in falsely and they had to 'return it to the rightful owner' #cough cough wink wink put it in my pocket#

I actually found this on an estonian website but its funny..

**********************************************************
[A lady died in January, and Citibank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere around $60.00. A family member placed a call to Citibank and here is the exchange...]

Family Member: “I am calling to tell you she died back in January.â€