2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform. Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.
I'm actually curious about this - what is it that makes managers and executives in "short supply" compared to other fields? Obviously it would be harder to get experience as an executive for a big company, but it seems like there are plenty of business graduates with the training to be managers and executives. So why are those people considered to be in such 'short supply' that they deserve huge pay relative to other employees?
The usual argument seems to be that "the market values their skills", but that seems like a circular argument because executives so often approve their own bonuses. Obviously if you give someone the power to set their own pay they're going to value themselves extremely highly. So is there something specific about the executive skillset that your average person doesn't have, or can't learn?
Want to read something interesting about business graduates? It takes effort to be that lazy, you know.
2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform. Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.
I'm actually curious about this - what is it that makes managers and executives in "short supply" compared to other fields? Obviously it would be harder to get experience as an executive for a big company, but it seems like there are plenty of business graduates with the training to be managers and executives. So why are those people considered to be in such 'short supply' that they deserve huge pay relative to other employees?
The reality of the situation is that if you are not going into a technical field, you're probably fairly easy to replace as a manager/executive if you're not very successful at your job. The unfortunate reality is that any business that has substantial largesse is almost too complicated to pinpoint a problem and then hold someone accountable. You rushed to get a product to market and it tanked due to some substantial flaws? That's because the finance guy was pushing you because of R&D costs. The finance guy was pushing it? That's because the marketing guy built his strategy around an old timetable that wasn't updated consistently by the Development guy. The Development guy didn't update the timetable because the IT guy has had issues with funding to lock down the networking because the accounting guy said it wasn't in the budget. The accounting guy said it wasn't in budget because a project they had counted on was rushed to market and tanked because of its substantial flaws. You follow the circle far enough, eventually you get to a guy who messed up, but also was a big idea guy for the company and it's hard to hold that guy accountable because if someone had fixed something along that path, it all might have turned out OK, and he'll be able to point to any part along the chain and go, why didn't those guys fix that issue when it came up. People rarely talk shit about their own department after all when annual reviews come up as you don't want to be liquidated.
The arbiter is supposedly shareholders, but I recall in 2009 some shareholder groups were prepared to get some executive compensation reform and a bunch of banks and financial groups went to the SEC to block shareholders votes on resolutions regarding it. A couple succeeded if I recall correctly, and that speaks pretty negatively to the SEC, but that's no big surprised if you're in the financial or accounting industry that the SEC is...not great.
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2012
Yeah, I fail to see how paying higher taxes of capital gains, or paying the grunts (ie, the workforce that your company depends upon to make shit happen) more money would pull the elite that much closer to the middle. Those bankers in that article make about 12x what I do, and guess what? I live in NYC too. Tough shit.
I don't see how you can argue that managerial positions are the only one who directly affect profits. They're diplomats, they delegate work, secure new customers, sure. All of the nitty gritty of making sure transactions go smoothly is not handled by them. Why, if the bosses planned succeeded, should they not be rewarded as well?
Vanguard on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Someone needs to win, and as a society, we can choose the rules, but I don't think we are really capable of creating a world where everyone is a winner, without choosing to artificially cap how far you can go. We can (and maybe should) make sure that the game is more competitive, so that the winners don't lap everyone else 10 times, but arguing against inequality as a concept seems like a way of saying everyone just has to settle for mediocre.
The ones who make the rules have the power. Unfortunately the people with that power are the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.
Inequality, at the current extent any way, is a bad concept. Especially when the people with power are hogging all the wealth and power. Corporations would be better off rewarding employees with bonuses whenever they reach x profits and spread it around equally, not let the corporate fuedal lord wannabe's keep all the profits primarily because their rank. The bosses didn't get their profits on their own. Without their employees doing the hard work their profit margins would shrink considerably.
I detest the public being called "mediocre". Having more money or power isn't a requisite for being a superior human being.
I know its just an annecdote, but I know tons of people in PE, and they work all the time. They make me look lazy. They make an absolute ton of money, but they seriously work around the clock.
I'm not talking about lawyers, I was talking about your bosses. You may be high on the totem pole in your company but you're not management or it's owners.
Whether corporations should pay big bonuses to executives is a seperate issue from whether they should pay bonuses to rank and files.
Why is that? It's all bonuses so it's the same subject.
I would be interested in seeing any studies done on the impact of bonuses paid to employees who cannot directly impact the success of the business, both in terms of productivity and the bottom line.
The fact that it's morally a good thing isn't enough? There's nothing good about the bosses keeping the majority of the profits for themselves while their workers do the majority of the work.
I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
1. PE is private equity. Literally professional owners. I have never known harder workers in my life than the people that work at PE firms.
Fair enough. That said, not all owners are like that IIRC.
2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform.
[A] They can't effect shit without their workers doing the dirty work. There's no reason for their extra pay and perks then a higher rank and greater control over the company's payroll. Shit, the whole pay scheme for the elite is fucked up. They can get paid more than once simultaneously in a year from what I saw about the new owner of Yahoo. That's pure greed & unrestrained power.
Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.
Having more mobility isn't a good reason to have extra pay. Freelancers can do that. There are employees whose jobs are all about mobility like plumbers or cable repairmen, as well. They're still low level employees.
Whether being headhunted from rivals, new graduates from colleges or promoted workers there will always be more managers. While not every employee can learn their skills, all it takes is searching for the right employees and they'll be replaced.
4. I am saying that the goal in lowering inequality should be improving the lot of the worst off, not hurting the rich just to bring them closer to the middle.
[C] Spreading the wealth isn't hurting the rich. That's rewarding the working class properly for their services. There's no equality when the wealthy horde the majority of a company's wealth. Unless they're a very small company where they have do a majority of the work.
A. Do you know many CEOs and other high ranking (above VP level) executives, professionally? I only ask because I know a lot of them, and I also know how the owners regard them. In my experience, a lot of weight is put on executive performance because they are responsible for growing the company into new markets and expanding their presence in existing markets. Rank and file employees are really important to a company's success, but they don't really do more than work to meet the demand that exists for the product or services (note that the demand may be an internal company demand for more marketing or other similiar growth oriented services). Executives are the people making and executing the plans to expand the company. While workers doing a great job may have a small impact on the bottom line, the level of services provided by workers is just accepted as a given. It is the executives who can really change things for the company by planning and taking dramatic actions like opening new plants, seeking out major new clients, etc.
B. You need to pay someone with more mobility more money if you want to keep them. That is why so much executive pay is structured as a long term incentive (i.e., you need to stay 5 years to get all of it).
There may not be a shortage of people who CAN do the job, but there is a shortage of people with experience doing the job, and noone wants to take the risk on the kid just out of business school (or even the guy who rose up in one company but has never worked at another) to run the company they just spent $1 billion to acquire. . .
C. It depends on how you do it. Like I said, I am happy to tax the rich to pay for a social safety net, healthcare and education for people. But beyond that? If everyone has a shot at succeeding, then I don't see why we should penalize success to redistribute income directly to workers who are not as successful. That said, I think that a world where a company paid more to rank and file employees would be better than the world we have now. I think the best way to do it would be to add nondiscrimination rules similiar to the rules that apply to 401(k) plans to nonqualified deferred comp plans and equity plans. We wouldn't need to say that everyone has to get paid the same amount under these plans, but I think it would be a good thing if you had to provide some level of benefits to all employees more akin to the benefits executives currently enjoy. I think the employee stock ownership plan approach is a great one. At companies with ESOPs, employees are given stock in the company to help pay for their retirement. It benefits the workers, it benefits the company (there are good tax effects) and it promotes a stakeholder culture. Unsurprisingly, they are really popular in community oriented places like new england.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
2/3. The idea behind compensating management is that they are in the position to personally affect profits, so giving direct incentives like equity or performance bonuses to them is supposed to incent them to work harder, since their work is thought to be able to directly increase profits. This is why I said I would be interested in seeing data on how companies which give significant bonuses to rank and file employees perform. Management is also more mobile than ordinary employees, since they are in shorter supply and good executives are always in demand, so the bonuses (especially equity) are awarded to retain talent.
I'm actually curious about this - what is it that makes managers and executives in "short supply" compared to other fields? Obviously it would be harder to get experience as an executive for a big company, but it seems like there are plenty of business graduates with the training to be managers and executives. So why are those people considered to be in such 'short supply' that they deserve huge pay relative to other employees?
The usual argument seems to be that "the market values their skills", but that seems like a circular argument because executives so often approve their own bonuses. Obviously if you give someone the power to set their own pay they're going to value themselves extremely highly. So is there something specific about the executive skillset that your average person doesn't have, or can't learn?
They are in short supply because training and theoretical potential are not enough. Noone wants to hire somebody who does not have substantial experience to run their company. Even people who rise up through a company may not be acceptable, since they have not proven that they can run a company where the don't have long standing relationships with the employees and other members of management. Also, and this is unfortunate in my view, part of the reason to hire an executive is their connections, and this is a source of value that you can't really replicate unless you have been an executive long enough to have a valuable network of connections.
Executives almost never approve their own bonuses (and NEVER do so in public companies). Public companies are actually required to have a compensation committee which makes decisions on compensation.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I don't have time for a long post but it's probably worth noting that a lot of the negatives centered on corporations are mostly only true of publicly owned corporations.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Hey @spacekungfuman, I just wanted to say that while alot of what you say really doesn't sit well with me and the way I think society should function, I really do appreciate the clear and detailed responses you've added on this topic. It still makes me throw up in my mouth thinking about how effectively the elite of the elite can legally scam the system. But stuff like executive pay structure and corporate tax policy are so far above my head that we might as well be discussion theoretical physics at an event horizon. So it's really nice to have my preconceptions smacked with a dose of reality.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I honestly think discussing the theoretical physics of the event horizon of a black hole would be less complicated than sussing out executive pay structure and corporate tax policy. At least one of those things is somewhat grounded in reality, and I'm not so sure about the latter.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I honestly think discussing the theoretical physics of the event horizon of a black hole would be less complicated than sussing out executive pay structure and corporate tax policy. At least one of those things is somewhat grounded in reality, and I'm not so sure about the latter.
It's really not that hard. Two parties with varying levels of bargaining power work out a mutually agreeable and beneficial arrangement, which is heavily constrained by tax, accounting and other regulatory rules and considerations. All of these considerations are capable of being understood, as long as you put the time into learning them.
I honestly think discussing the theoretical physics of the event horizon of a black hole would be less complicated than sussing out executive pay structure and corporate tax policy. At least one of those things is somewhat grounded in reality, and I'm not so sure about the latter.
Describing what happens at the event horizon actually isn't that difficult on a conceptual level within Einstein's framework but the actual math to prove it is a real bitch. :P
People facing homelessness (unless you mean just losing their homes, which is still not even the average, whats the default rate? 5%?) is an incredibly tiny percentage of the whole, and no amount of anecdotal evidence changes that.
I learned from the news that around 24% of home sales are foreclosure related currently. I'm not sure if that means that there are still even more homes out there that are foreclosure related that simply have not sold. Your 5% default rate made me think of this, because in the same report they also said that 5% foreclosure related home sales are the mark of a healthy economy.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Is that number accurate? It just seems hard to believe, given the cost of housing. Of course I know there are people going to the public schools in Manhattan (and a lot of people choose to leave so they can send their kids to better public schools in the suburbs) but that doesn't make sending your kids to private school unreasonable. It is a consumption choice, but it is one many people in Manhattan feel obligated to make, so it just becomes another part of cost of living. Someone who makes $2mm a year can really live in Manhattan, but for someone making $200k, it is a choice that carries real costs, not just "oh, I can't buy as many yachts as I want to."
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
Half making under $100k makes much more sense to me. And the cost of living is so much lower in the Burroughs that it isn't even really comparable.
But I honestly think that it is not fair to determine who is so rich they are not allowed to complain without factoring in cost of living. A first year lawyer fresh out of law school in Texas who works at a national law firm makes $165k (the same as in NYC) and with that money, he can buy a 5000 sq. ft. house. In NYC, he would have to rent a crappy apartment.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Really, SKFM? I don't think he'd be lacking for options on that salary in NYC. He's not going to own a townhouse, but I make less than one-fifth of that and I don't live in a crappy apartment by any means.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Really, SKFM? I don't think he'd be lacking for options on that salary in NYC. He's not going to own a townhouse, but I make less than one-fifth of that and I don't live in a crappy apartment by any means.
He's exaggerating, but he's not wrong. The income disparity within the same practice due to geography is, I want to believe, much less than the disparity between costs of living. For the same job in NYC vs. Dallas I was paid about 150% of my Dallas pay, but my rent per sq.ft.in NYC was $4.9/sqft whereas in Dallas I paid about $0.75/sq.ft.
Is that number accurate? It just seems hard to believe, given the cost of housing. Of course I know there are people going to the public schools in Manhattan (and a lot of people choose to leave so they can send their kids to better public schools in the suburbs) but that doesn't make sending your kids to private school unreasonable. It is a consumption choice, but it is one many people in Manhattan feel obligated to make, so it just becomes another part of cost of living. Someone who makes $2mm a year can really live in Manhattan, but for someone making $200k, it is a choice that carries real costs, not just "oh, I can't buy as many yachts as I want to."
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
Half making under $100k makes much more sense to me. And the cost of living is so much lower in the Burroughs that it isn't even really comparable.
But I honestly think that it is not fair to determine who is so rich they are not allowed to complain without factoring in cost of living. A first year lawyer fresh out of law school in Texas who works at a national law firm makes $165k (the same as in NYC) and with that money, he can buy a 5000 sq. ft. house. In NYC, he would have to rent a crappy apartment.
So, because he makes a choice that costs him a lot of money (work in NYC), that makes him less well off? The options aren't work in NYC or starve, he can get work as a lawyer elsewhere; in fact probably the only reason to work in NYC when you can make the same in a much cheaper area is
1) you really love the city, ie you're willing to pay the luxury tax of living there
2) you really want the prestige/possible advancement path of a NYC law firm, at which point I suppose you could consider it an investment
In either case it's really a luxury choice to live there, so COL is kind of a red herring here
It's still a shitload more money than most people make, so yes he's still rich(ish). Not Richy McRichpants, but certainly not poor
edit: I'm also not sure why a fresh-out-of-school laywer who makes around 3+x the median income of the country and who decided to park himself in one of the most expensive zones of one of the most expensive cities on the planet is your benchmark anyway
Really, SKFM? I don't think he'd be lacking for options on that salary in NYC. He's not going to own a townhouse, but I make less than one-fifth of that and I don't live in a crappy apartment by any means.
Crappy was an exaggeration, but I can tell you with complete confidence that first year attorneys in Manhattan do not feel rich. But then they also usually have $150k+ in debt to pay off. . . The difference between the lifestyle of the Texas first year (who really is rich) and the NYC first year is pretty great, even though they make the exact same amount of money.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
No, everyone isn't making over 1,000,000 a year. A lot of families are stuck in horrible poverty. Most of the working poor is eligible for assistance because otherwise they wouldn't be able feed/clothe/shelter their kids on a "middle class" household income of $40,000.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm not disputing that there is a difference, but if you're making six figures you're not poor. You might not be rich in NYC, but complaining about your lack of money is still pretty delusional.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
no you aren't poor on low six figures. You're in that huge comfortable zone between Completely Fucked and Straight Ballin'.
Basically you can meet your bills and keep the lights on without getting chestpains.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm not saying poor at all. The article that started this said $200k is rich without qualification, and I think that is ridiculous. Like Dee said, there is a big space between poof and rich, and that is where people making this kind of money fit in NYC.
Are there many veterans who also happen to be lawyers? I wouldn't think there was much crossover there... the rest of that is just funny
I don't think there is a lot of overlap. The funniest thing is this is a contract attorney position, so the person who gets the job won't even have any meaningful interaction with the full time attorneys. They will just spend their days looking at documents and noting if they reference the names or topics relevant to the case they are working on, and then a much younger, less experienced attorney will review their report and pass it on to a midlevel or senior associate.
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
No, everyone isn't making over 1,000,000 a year. A lot of families are stuck in horrible poverty. Most of the working poor is eligible for assistance because otherwise they wouldn't be able feed/clothe/shelter their kids on a "middle class" household income of $40,000.
And a lot of people are not stuck in horrible poverty. Like I said there are 8.7 Million people in New York. Not everyone of them live in crappy neighborhoods or war zones. There are millions of people that live okay lives while living in New York without making the megabucks. Pretending its either Penthouse or flophouse is a lie.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I'm not saying poor at all. The article that started this said $200k is rich without qualification, and I think that is ridiculous. Like Dee said, there is a big space between poof and rich, and that is where people making this kind of money fit in NYC.
I thought this was funny:
In other words: We want someone we can poop on who won't complain about the smell.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think it should be made a misdemeanor to slanderize other free Western democracies without spending any time there whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Or at least should be.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2012
Someone should apply, get the contact information, and report him to the BBB. I'm pretty sure you can't make an add listing any of that stuff as a requirement.
Vanguard on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
No, everyone isn't making over 1,000,000 a year. A lot of families are stuck in horrible poverty. Most of the working poor is eligible for assistance because otherwise they wouldn't be able feed/clothe/shelter their kids on a "middle class" household income of $40,000.
And a lot of people are not stuck in horrible poverty. Like I said there are 8.7 Million people in New York. Not everyone of them live in crappy neighborhoods or war zones. There are millions of people that live okay lives while living in New York without making the megabucks. Pretending its either Penthouse or flophouse is a lie.
It's also not the argument anyone is making. $200,000 a year isn't "Penthouse" money. A household income of $100,000 a year gets you a pretty shitty apartment, minor luxuries, and the security to not have to worry too much about your student loans while still keeping the lights on.
$40,000 will do you alright as a single dude with roommates, anemic long term savings, and living pretty much paycheck to paycheck.
Sure there are 8.7 million people living in NYC, but without wikipediaing, I'm guessing about 20% are in poverty and around 30% receive some form of public assistance (EBT, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid....etc), not to mention those that still have rent control.
I'm not saying poor at all. The article that started this said $200k is rich without qualification, and I think that is ridiculous. Like Dee said, there is a big space between poof and rich, and that is where people making this kind of money fit in NYC.
A person making $200k would be close to the top 1.5% of the US income earners. If they are not rich, how fucked up does society have to be for the other 98%? Because no matter how you slice and dice it, hem and haw it, $200k is a lot of money and it goes a long way.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
People who believe $200K is rich without qualification seem to have a lot of trouble with empathy and the ability to imagine situations outside their own experience.
Cost of Living is a thing. Single Income Households are a thing.
Maybe the problem is that some people see "rich" purely as a question of what you make, and others see it as a question of how you can live.
Even in Austin's tolerable CoL, with a single income and three kids I would be well off and comfortable making $200K but by no means would I be able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
This is off topic to the thread so I won't go into debate, but there are 1.5 million people living in Manhattan alone and they can't all be making over a million a year. The per capita income is $100k this means half the people make less then $100k(remove the finance industry and it would sink even lower) and are stuck with whatever public schools they can get.
NYC proper has over 8.7 million inhabitants with an average household income of around(ballpark) $55k. If New York is so expensive then its a wonder that anybody can afford to live there(and no they don't all live in war zones or crappy neighborhoods either).
No, everyone isn't making over 1,000,000 a year. A lot of families are stuck in horrible poverty. Most of the working poor is eligible for assistance because otherwise they wouldn't be able feed/clothe/shelter their kids on a "middle class" household income of $40,000.
And a lot of people are not stuck in horrible poverty. Like I said there are 8.7 Million people in New York. Not everyone of them live in crappy neighborhoods or war zones. There are millions of people that live okay lives while living in New York without making the megabucks. Pretending its either Penthouse or flophouse is a lie.
Its ironic that in discussions about how the middle class is disappearing, people tend to leave the middle class out of the equation entirely. . .
Also, FWIW, I think a lot of the people who complain about "struggling" to get by but who make good livings are really talking about having difficulty meeting the standards their peers set for them. Its easy to view private school as a crazy luxury noone should feel a need to pay for when all your peers send their kids to public schools, but if all your peers send their kids to private schools, then you might feel (1) that this is the norm and (2) that its important for their future.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Kip, no offense, but you really don't have a clue. The median income doesn't mean diddles, when a family with the median income is still eligible for public assistance.
Wikipedia knowledge is great for some things, but not this.
People who believe $200K is rich without qualification seem to have a lot of trouble with empathy and the ability to imagine situations outside their own experience.
Cost of Living is a thing. Single Income Households are a thing.
Maybe the problem is that some people see "rich" purely as a question of what you make, and others see it as a question of how you can live.
Even in Austin's tolerable CoL, with a single income and three kids I would be well off and comfortable making $200K but by no means would I be able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went.
These two phrases show the difference between what we believe spool. I don't care if $200k isn't enough to throw money around, if you still are "well off" with a fancy house and a fancy car and live in a fancy neighborhood, then you are rich.
"When my family's Aruba vacation went over budget, that was exactly like you being unable to afford medication for your child's excruciating chronic illness!"
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
If you choose to have a single income household in a super expensive area... well I'm sorry but I can't feel any worse for you than a millionaire who chooses to buy a dozen ferraris and then whine about how he has no money. Or said millionare with a McMansion and private schooling and a whole list of other luxuries. My parents made ~50-60k, with a single income, in Canada. We lived quite comfortably, though not in a high CoL area. We didn't live in downtown Toronto, because well we wouldn't really be able to afford it!
Live within your means. Any amount of money isn't enough, if you decide to spend it!
People who believe $200K is rich without qualification seem to have a lot of trouble with empathy and the ability to imagine situations outside their own experience.
Cost of Living is a thing. Single Income Households are a thing.
Maybe the problem is that some people see "rich" purely as a question of what you make, and others see it as a question of how you can live.
Even in Austin's tolerable CoL, with a single income and three kids I would be well off and comfortable making $200K but by no means would I be able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went.
These two phrases show the difference between what we believe spool. I don't care if $200k isn't enough to throw money around, if you still are "well off" with a fancy house and a fancy car and live in a fancy neighborhood, then you are rich.
"When my family's Aruba vacation went over budget, that was exactly like you being unable to afford medication for your child's excruciating chronic illness!"
What Atomic Ross said. I mean seriously - what the fuck?
Well off! Not fancy car, fancy house, fancy neighborhood. I'm talking about the house I currently live in, 2100sq. ft. in a suburb. I'm talking about public school, the same cars I drive, the same house I have now, but with my shit paid off, my kids going to college on my nickel and not the State's (or the bank's). I'm talking about out of debt and contributing to my retirement and saving for some bad shit, covering my wife's medical bills and maybe taking a vacation once a year, maybe.
It's like I said - no empathy or ability to imagine circumstances with which they're unfamiliar.
Well, you're right, we're trying to define what is "rich" here. So my definition of rich is "well off and comfortable" while spools is "able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went."
Like Romney saying he's not rich since he's only a multi-millionaire while the Koch brothers are billionaires. "Oh dear, I don't have enough money this month to buy that tenth private jet, I guess I'm not rich!"
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Posts
Want to read something interesting about business graduates? It takes effort to be that lazy, you know.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/business_education
The reality of the situation is that if you are not going into a technical field, you're probably fairly easy to replace as a manager/executive if you're not very successful at your job. The unfortunate reality is that any business that has substantial largesse is almost too complicated to pinpoint a problem and then hold someone accountable. You rushed to get a product to market and it tanked due to some substantial flaws? That's because the finance guy was pushing you because of R&D costs. The finance guy was pushing it? That's because the marketing guy built his strategy around an old timetable that wasn't updated consistently by the Development guy. The Development guy didn't update the timetable because the IT guy has had issues with funding to lock down the networking because the accounting guy said it wasn't in the budget. The accounting guy said it wasn't in budget because a project they had counted on was rushed to market and tanked because of its substantial flaws. You follow the circle far enough, eventually you get to a guy who messed up, but also was a big idea guy for the company and it's hard to hold that guy accountable because if someone had fixed something along that path, it all might have turned out OK, and he'll be able to point to any part along the chain and go, why didn't those guys fix that issue when it came up. People rarely talk shit about their own department after all when annual reviews come up as you don't want to be liquidated.
The arbiter is supposedly shareholders, but I recall in 2009 some shareholder groups were prepared to get some executive compensation reform and a bunch of banks and financial groups went to the SEC to block shareholders votes on resolutions regarding it. A couple succeeded if I recall correctly, and that speaks pretty negatively to the SEC, but that's no big surprised if you're in the financial or accounting industry that the SEC is...not great.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I don't see how you can argue that managerial positions are the only one who directly affect profits. They're diplomats, they delegate work, secure new customers, sure. All of the nitty gritty of making sure transactions go smoothly is not handled by them. Why, if the bosses planned succeeded, should they not be rewarded as well?
A. Do you know many CEOs and other high ranking (above VP level) executives, professionally? I only ask because I know a lot of them, and I also know how the owners regard them. In my experience, a lot of weight is put on executive performance because they are responsible for growing the company into new markets and expanding their presence in existing markets. Rank and file employees are really important to a company's success, but they don't really do more than work to meet the demand that exists for the product or services (note that the demand may be an internal company demand for more marketing or other similiar growth oriented services). Executives are the people making and executing the plans to expand the company. While workers doing a great job may have a small impact on the bottom line, the level of services provided by workers is just accepted as a given. It is the executives who can really change things for the company by planning and taking dramatic actions like opening new plants, seeking out major new clients, etc.
B. You need to pay someone with more mobility more money if you want to keep them. That is why so much executive pay is structured as a long term incentive (i.e., you need to stay 5 years to get all of it).
There may not be a shortage of people who CAN do the job, but there is a shortage of people with experience doing the job, and noone wants to take the risk on the kid just out of business school (or even the guy who rose up in one company but has never worked at another) to run the company they just spent $1 billion to acquire. . .
C. It depends on how you do it. Like I said, I am happy to tax the rich to pay for a social safety net, healthcare and education for people. But beyond that? If everyone has a shot at succeeding, then I don't see why we should penalize success to redistribute income directly to workers who are not as successful. That said, I think that a world where a company paid more to rank and file employees would be better than the world we have now. I think the best way to do it would be to add nondiscrimination rules similiar to the rules that apply to 401(k) plans to nonqualified deferred comp plans and equity plans. We wouldn't need to say that everyone has to get paid the same amount under these plans, but I think it would be a good thing if you had to provide some level of benefits to all employees more akin to the benefits executives currently enjoy. I think the employee stock ownership plan approach is a great one. At companies with ESOPs, employees are given stock in the company to help pay for their retirement. It benefits the workers, it benefits the company (there are good tax effects) and it promotes a stakeholder culture. Unsurprisingly, they are really popular in community oriented places like new england.
They are in short supply because training and theoretical potential are not enough. Noone wants to hire somebody who does not have substantial experience to run their company. Even people who rise up through a company may not be acceptable, since they have not proven that they can run a company where the don't have long standing relationships with the employees and other members of management. Also, and this is unfortunate in my view, part of the reason to hire an executive is their connections, and this is a source of value that you can't really replicate unless you have been an executive long enough to have a valuable network of connections.
Executives almost never approve their own bonuses (and NEVER do so in public companies). Public companies are actually required to have a compensation committee which makes decisions on compensation.
It's really not that hard. Two parties with varying levels of bargaining power work out a mutually agreeable and beneficial arrangement, which is heavily constrained by tax, accounting and other regulatory rules and considerations. All of these considerations are capable of being understood, as long as you put the time into learning them.
Describing what happens at the event horizon actually isn't that difficult on a conceptual level within Einstein's framework but the actual math to prove it is a real bitch. :P
I learned from the news that around 24% of home sales are foreclosure related currently. I'm not sure if that means that there are still even more homes out there that are foreclosure related that simply have not sold. Your 5% default rate made me think of this, because in the same report they also said that 5% foreclosure related home sales are the mark of a healthy economy.
Half making under $100k makes much more sense to me. And the cost of living is so much lower in the Burroughs that it isn't even really comparable.
But I honestly think that it is not fair to determine who is so rich they are not allowed to complain without factoring in cost of living. A first year lawyer fresh out of law school in Texas who works at a national law firm makes $165k (the same as in NYC) and with that money, he can buy a 5000 sq. ft. house. In NYC, he would have to rent a crappy apartment.
He's exaggerating, but he's not wrong. The income disparity within the same practice due to geography is, I want to believe, much less than the disparity between costs of living. For the same job in NYC vs. Dallas I was paid about 150% of my Dallas pay, but my rent per sq.ft.in NYC was $4.9/sqft whereas in Dallas I paid about $0.75/sq.ft.
That's a huge difference.
So, because he makes a choice that costs him a lot of money (work in NYC), that makes him less well off? The options aren't work in NYC or starve, he can get work as a lawyer elsewhere; in fact probably the only reason to work in NYC when you can make the same in a much cheaper area is
1) you really love the city, ie you're willing to pay the luxury tax of living there
2) you really want the prestige/possible advancement path of a NYC law firm, at which point I suppose you could consider it an investment
In either case it's really a luxury choice to live there, so COL is kind of a red herring here
It's still a shitload more money than most people make, so yes he's still rich(ish). Not Richy McRichpants, but certainly not poor
edit: I'm also not sure why a fresh-out-of-school laywer who makes around 3+x the median income of the country and who decided to park himself in one of the most expensive zones of one of the most expensive cities on the planet is your benchmark anyway
Crappy was an exaggeration, but I can tell you with complete confidence that first year attorneys in Manhattan do not feel rich. But then they also usually have $150k+ in debt to pay off. . . The difference between the lifestyle of the Texas first year (who really is rich) and the NYC first year is pretty great, even though they make the exact same amount of money.
No, everyone isn't making over 1,000,000 a year. A lot of families are stuck in horrible poverty. Most of the working poor is eligible for assistance because otherwise they wouldn't be able feed/clothe/shelter their kids on a "middle class" household income of $40,000.
Basically you can meet your bills and keep the lights on without getting chestpains.
I thought this was funny:
I don't think there is a lot of overlap. The funniest thing is this is a contract attorney position, so the person who gets the job won't even have any meaningful interaction with the full time attorneys. They will just spend their days looking at documents and noting if they reference the names or topics relevant to the case they are working on, and then a much younger, less experienced attorney will review their report and pass it on to a midlevel or senior associate.
And a lot of people are not stuck in horrible poverty. Like I said there are 8.7 Million people in New York. Not everyone of them live in crappy neighborhoods or war zones. There are millions of people that live okay lives while living in New York without making the megabucks. Pretending its either Penthouse or flophouse is a lie.
In other words: We want someone we can poop on who won't complain about the smell.
Also, Europe isn't a country.
It's also not the argument anyone is making. $200,000 a year isn't "Penthouse" money. A household income of $100,000 a year gets you a pretty shitty apartment, minor luxuries, and the security to not have to worry too much about your student loans while still keeping the lights on.
$40,000 will do you alright as a single dude with roommates, anemic long term savings, and living pretty much paycheck to paycheck.
Sure there are 8.7 million people living in NYC, but without wikipediaing, I'm guessing about 20% are in poverty and around 30% receive some form of public assistance (EBT, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid....etc), not to mention those that still have rent control.
$200K is rich without qualification. Even in the highest income counties in the US, you would be making over twice the average income.
Here is a link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_statistical_areas_in_the_United_States
Even in New York you would have almost four times the money the average household has.
If you look at this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_US
A person making $200k would be close to the top 1.5% of the US income earners. If they are not rich, how fucked up does society have to be for the other 98%? Because no matter how you slice and dice it, hem and haw it, $200k is a lot of money and it goes a long way.
Cost of Living is a thing. Single Income Households are a thing.
Maybe the problem is that some people see "rich" purely as a question of what you make, and others see it as a question of how you can live.
Even in Austin's tolerable CoL, with a single income and three kids I would be well off and comfortable making $200K but by no means would I be able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went.
I think the only thing being argued is that $200k isn't as elastic as a lot of people would like to believe.
If I made $200k in Dallas, I'd honestly have a 5000sqft house in a top-flight neighborhood, probably on several acres.
In NYC, I'd have a nice 1500 sqft apartment and my kids would probably still have to go to public school.
Its ironic that in discussions about how the middle class is disappearing, people tend to leave the middle class out of the equation entirely. . .
Also, FWIW, I think a lot of the people who complain about "struggling" to get by but who make good livings are really talking about having difficulty meeting the standards their peers set for them. Its easy to view private school as a crazy luxury noone should feel a need to pay for when all your peers send their kids to public schools, but if all your peers send their kids to private schools, then you might feel (1) that this is the norm and (2) that its important for their future.
Wikipedia knowledge is great for some things, but not this.
These two phrases show the difference between what we believe spool. I don't care if $200k isn't enough to throw money around, if you still are "well off" with a fancy house and a fancy car and live in a fancy neighborhood, then you are rich.
To quote David Wong your argument is like this:
Live within your means. Any amount of money isn't enough, if you decide to spend it!
This is a weirdly subjective hill to make your stand upon.
You've literally just said, "I don't care about qualifying criteria, I think you meet the arbitrary definition!"
What Atomic Ross said. I mean seriously - what the fuck?
Well off! Not fancy car, fancy house, fancy neighborhood. I'm talking about the house I currently live in, 2100sq. ft. in a suburb. I'm talking about public school, the same cars I drive, the same house I have now, but with my shit paid off, my kids going to college on my nickel and not the State's (or the bank's). I'm talking about out of debt and contributing to my retirement and saving for some bad shit, covering my wife's medical bills and maybe taking a vacation once a year, maybe.
It's like I said - no empathy or ability to imagine circumstances with which they're unfamiliar.
Well, you're right, we're trying to define what is "rich" here. So my definition of rich is "well off and comfortable" while spools is "able to casually throw money around without a care for where it went."
Like Romney saying he's not rich since he's only a multi-millionaire while the Koch brothers are billionaires. "Oh dear, I don't have enough money this month to buy that tenth private jet, I guess I'm not rich!"