It takes a lot for people to realise that extravagant events look bad, but it does happen.

Following on from the 2008 credit crisis, events like these completely stopped in the financial sector and while they have returned since they are much more modest than they were.

*meta* For some reason this thread cannot be found on the front page. It is a bit surprising given how recent it is and how many points it got.

For reference I discovered it a few minutes ago on the front page. It currently has 75 upvotes and was posted 1 hour ago. Another topic currently on the front page called "the scully effect" is 8 hours old and has 55 votes.

I think this looks bad, but it's got to do more than look bad. Is a rock concert a drop in the bucket compared to the savings they want, or are they genuinely comparable?

It is a good opportunity to recommend reading "Skin in the Game" by Taleb? Even if this doesn't make a big difference in the final budget, the message is important. People is important, specially in big enough numbers. You are dealing with agents of your system, not nuts and bolts.

Seems similar to how communist party of the soviet union worked. As any organization becomes huge, psychopaths migrate to the top and make it shitty. Maybe solution is some kind of mandatory splitting at some size?

I mean, I am not trying to justify this, but isn't this happening because "Owning Corporation - Event Fund" is channeling money from different sources than "Employee Payroll Financing Structure"?

Like, its not just one big account/corporate structure that allows for sending money from the party account directly to employees?

I of course am not justifying this - but someone has to be. There is a corporate structure in place, which isn't at all transparent, it seems, which allows for slush, and it all starts with the tax man, doesn't it .. the rock concerts are probably a writeoff for .. someone ..