Quote:
Originally Posted by jd1020
I'm not talking about lowering anything... I'm talking about incentive bonuses.
|
That's the extent of your response?
You're going to continue to ignore every bit of economic reality contained in there in order to once again harp about including incentive bonuses? Bonuses which, again, cannot be tied to performance?
Besides, that's exactly what you're arguing. Incentives have an economic value (amount of incentive multiplied by the likelihood of achieving them). If you're including incentives in the back of the contract in lieu of salary, then you're talking about reducing the value of the contract.
If you're talking about incentives
in addition to the salary, you're talking about raising the value of the contract.
All you're doing there is dicking around with the overall value of the contract. None of that changes the fact that it still makes absolutely no sense at all to front-load the guaranteed portion of the salary.
Again - do people pay interest for charity?
If my firm offers to give me my next 7 years worth of salary tomorrow - done. I'll pay off every note I have to save the interest on those, I'll invest the rest in conservative crap the yields 7% and I'll end up better than twice as wealthy for my efforts (the math doesn't lie here; give it a shot).
You're not making any sense here. Money now is
always more valuable than money later under any economic scale.