I don’t understand why Jamie Dimon’s 74% raise is getting discussed so much.
If his bank gets no money from the government, then it’s nobody’s business how this private entity chooses to compensate its employees.
And if the bank does get money from the government, that should stop regardless of what Dimon is making or whether Dimon even exists.
Clarissa's Blog 
I believe JP Morgan received 25 billion in 2008 from the government.
LikeLike
The people who discuss Jamie Dimon’s raise do so because
1) The bank itself had losses. He is the CEO of one of the largest banks that just paid out
20 billion in fines in 2013. In 2012, the bank lost 2 billion. Jamie Dimon has been the CEO of that company since 2005.
2) In 2008, the bank accepted 25 billion from the government in 2008.
3) In addition he is a spectacularly whiny individual.
If Jamie Dimon were only incompetent, only whiny, or only overpaid, nobody would care. Apparently paying large amount of fines and incurring large losses is not a sign of incompetence to JP Morgan’s board or is outweighed by the raise in share price.
LikeLike
“Apparently paying large amount of fines and incurring large losses is not a sign of incompetence to JP Morgan’s board or is outweighed by the raise in share price.”
– So? If a private business wants to reward the most stupid employee, that’s the business’s right, isn’t it?
The problem I have with this is that, yet again, everything becomes about personalities. Let’s oppose the practice of giving governmental money to banks, I’m all for that. But who cares what individual employees are like and what their salaries are?
LikeLike
I think the large banks have the capability to greatly damage the economy. Rewarding employees who are likely to make that happen may have the potential to damage many of us.
LikeLike
I think that fixating on individuals makes it more difficult to preclude the damage institutions cause.
LikeLike