I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
This is a dumb and shitty opinion. Every industry has shitheads. Every sector, public or private.
tyrannus on
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
The risk of their actions? Do we really think pursuing a job in finance is dangerous, especially with respect to people who took the job after spending their entire college careers seeing bonuses be paid consistently?
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
The risk of their actions? Do we really think pursuing a job in finance is dangerous, especially with respect to people who took the job after spending their entire college careers seeing bonuses be paid consistently?
Every job is a risk. The fact these guys weren't taught to use their money wisely in a field where money is the main subject is certainly a flaw that needs to be addressed, whether it's them or their classes.
If I'm reading you correctly they get paid many bonuses through the year rather then at once, which is bullshit. Their salaries shouldn't be any different in format then the lower class employees in other fields especially when they're a much greater drain on the company's resources financially.
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
The risk of their actions? Do we really think pursuing a job in finance is dangerous, especially with respect to people who took the job after spending their entire college careers seeing bonuses be paid consistently?
Every job is a risk. The fact these guys weren't taught to use their money wisely in a field where money is the main subject is certainly a flaw that needs to be addressed, whether it's them or their classes.
If I'm reading you correctly they get paid many bonuses through the year rather then at once, which is bullshit. Their salaries shouldn't be any different in format then the lower class employees in other fields especially when they're a much greater drain on the company's resources financially.
I am curious, how exactly do you envision highly paid executives in the financial sector, or any sector for that manner, to have an effect on other sectors compensation? Or did you mean that high executive pay exerts downward pressure on employees that are not within the executive tract?
What's stopping other employees from getting Christmas bonuses and year end bonuses? Are quarterly bonuses given for beating market projections so bad?
and how do you even prove that an employee is a "great drain" on the company's resources? If your traders are bringing in bank, then they're doing there jobs and are adding value to the company. and how do you even compare services across professions? A computer programmer, an IT auditor, and a derivative trader are all going to have different ways that they add value. You'd be hard pressed to estimate exactly how much.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
This is a dumb and shitty opinion. Every industry has shitheads. Every sector, public or private.
Yes, but not everyone goes to school and gets a masters in shitheaditry, then goes to work for shithead, inc. Do you honestly believe that the current state of affairs is a good one, where the best thing you can do if you want to make a ton of cash is literally nothing but moving money from one pile into another?
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
This is a dumb and shitty opinion. Every industry has shitheads. Every sector, public or private.
Yes, but not everyone goes to school and gets a masters in shitheaditry, then goes to work for shithead, inc. Do you honestly believe that the current state of affairs is a good one, where the best thing you can do if you want to make a ton of cash is literally nothing but moving money from one pile into another?
You have illustrated the "rub" in the situation. Not everyone goes to get an education in how to get a masters in shitheadery. Are you opposed to the idea of stock/bonds/futures or just the recent exposure of a minority in the industry that seek to do nothing but exploit financial wizardry, which proved to be quite caustic to the economy?
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
The risk of their actions? Do we really think pursuing a job in finance is dangerous, especially with respect to people who took the job after spending their entire college careers seeing bonuses be paid consistently?
No, I think $140k in salary is enough to get by perfectly fine, and that the $300k bonuses shouldn't have been counted on. They took the risk to count on that $300k bonus. The bonus which, by vary nature of being a bonus, is not guaranteed. They should have lived below that $300k, making sure that all expenses are taken care of with that $140k. Use the $300k for luxuries only. You know, like normal people do (by paying off the massive amount of debt they have or having a good meal for once).
Complaining about it is like someone complaining about their car being towed when they parked in the handicapped spot. They knew that risk, they still took it.
No I don't.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I don't feel sympathetic for someone who wears wingsuits and eventually crashes and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who races cars and eventually crashes it and dies. I don't feel sympathetic for someone who goes to live with the bears and eventually gets eaten by them and dies. And I definitely don't feel sympathetic for someone who decides to take their bonuses and tie it up into their regular budget, especially if their base salary is more money than I've been able to make (combined) in my 27 years on this planet.
Edit: not to say I take any sort of happiness from these situations, but again, sympathy? I feel sympathetic for someone who's not taking risks and gets fucked over, not for someone who's putting themselves in danger and gets fucked over. Their family and friends? Yes. But they themselves knew the risk of their actions.
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
Yes, but not everyone goes to school and gets a masters in shitheaditry, then goes to work for shithead, inc. Do you honestly believe that the current state of affairs is a good one, where the best thing you can do if you want to make a ton of cash is literally nothing but moving money from one pile into another?
Ohoho! But it's so much more then that! Your job is to invent new ways to move money so that you can take pile A from Billionaire B, and spread it among so many different investments, insurance, etc. so that it becomes literally impossible for the Billionaire to lose cash even if the investment craters. That's what Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations are about isn't it? New and complex ways to bet twice on an investment so win/lose you still get $TEXAS in annual returns regardless?
So basically, your job is all about exploring new bold frontiers of shit-headedness in finding ways to ensure that no matter what the Mega-Rich always rake in huge returns on their investments regardless of the human cost. That may backfire though if Greece is any indication. Moody's already declared it a default even if the ISDA won't, which means that if this starts a trend we may finally be able to cut some fat from the finance sector.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
One of the many reasons why credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations are bad isn't because they hedge, but because the hedge can be used to call on more derivatives and you create a situation where you can very heavily leverage something.
and also because the rating agencies really fucking dropped the ball on them. you don't rate shit you don't understand AAA
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
I'm not saying the financial services industry shouldn't exist; I'm saying that it shouldn't exist at the scale it currently does. And keep in mind that without the financial services industry, we wouldn't be in the complete shithole we are right now economically.
And while not all of the financial services industry may not be mustache-twirling villains, a metric fuckton of them absolutely are. Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
One of the many reasons why credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations are bad isn't because they hedge, but because the hedge can be used to call on more derivatives and you create a situation where you can very heavily leverage something.
and also because the rating agencies really fucking dropped the ball on them. you don't rate shit you don't understand AAA
You do when the other option is "if we don't give them an AAA, they'll go to another ratings agency, and we won't get as much money from them."
One of the many reasons why credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations are bad isn't because they hedge, but because the hedge can be used to call on more derivatives and you create a situation where you can very heavily leverage something.
and also because the rating agencies really fucking dropped the ball on them. you don't rate shit you don't understand AAA
You do when the other option is "if we don't give them an AAA, they'll go to another ratings agency, and we won't get as much money from them."
Or when the rating agency is staffed by idiots and has no idea what they're doing, but somehow get paid $Texas for it anyway.
Most of us judge poor people, viewing them at worst as lazy, at best as suffering from deficient financial behavior. We've gotten used to thinking that being poor is their fault: If they were smarter or more industrious they surely would have overcome their poverty.
Shafir, however, claims that the real culprit isn't lack of ability but problems created by poverty. "These problems are distracting and cause mistakes," he told Markerweek in an interview.
"When you're poor you're surrounded by bad decisions of people around you," he says. "You're so concerned about the present that you can't begin thinking about the future, and that's the big irony: People with the greatest need to think about the future don't have the leisure or emotional capacity to do so. The very essence of poverty complicates decisions and makes immediate needs so urgent that you start making wrong choices. These mistakes aren't any different from anyone else's, but they occur more frequently due to the element of stress, and their implications are much greater."
...
According to Shafir, "When I make a financial mistake I get upset and move on. When someone poor makes a mistake, he pays for it for months - even years. He needs to borrow at gouging interest to return the money, and it takes him months .... The entire structure crumbles beneath him, and it's hard to grasp how exhausting this is and how it leads to blunders. And this is all without mentioning the considerable differences between a poor living environment and others - from noise, dirt and education all the way to health care.
More behind the link. It's a long article, and every single paragraph is gold. I love this in particular:
A poor person has very little. In fact, not only isn't he helped, he gets harassed, taken advantage of, cheated. I have a good lawyer, he has a lousy lawyer. My bank gives me all the possibilities to choose from that he doesn't get. It's not that the world just doesn't help the poor, it trips him up even further," he says.
"For example, it used to be common for banks in the U.S. to send me my credit card statement and let me pay it by June 20. It turned out that the 20th fell on a Sunday, so if I followed their advice I would be forced to pay late and it would cost me a $35 penalty. That's how it was until Obama made this practice illegal.
"If I needed to pay a $35 penalty I got tripped up, but what did I care? But with a poor person - his whole week is changed. The world isn't prepared to help him because the attitude is that he brought it on himself and can't be helped. By the way, my current account doesn't cost me a penny. The bank isn't a charity, so how does it do it? The poor subsidize me. Each time one of their checks bounce they subsidize my account - which doesn't have any fees attached."
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
I'm not saying the financial services industry shouldn't exist; I'm saying that it shouldn't exist at the scale it currently does. And keep in mind that without the financial services industry, we wouldn't be in the complete shithole we are right now economically.
And while not all of the financial services industry may not be mustache-twirling villains, a metric fuckton of them absolutely are. Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
One of the hardest problems in approaching these issues is the chicken and egg relationship of the financial sector and the overall economy. If the financial sector was not so large, maybe we could have avoided the crisis and people would not have lost their jobs, but they also may never have had those jobs in the first place. I don't think we can even imagine what the economy or the world would look like without the financial sector.
Why is everyone so down on Goldman anyway? They were the last investment bank left standing, and their operations (like underwriting and asset management services) are so critical that the market practically would not exist without them.
Because they're evil. Here's how they created the lie to get Greece into the EU, for example. They also tend to be the ones who get to be Treasury Secretary so can further enrich themselves. Good times. They're emblematic of the larger problem, which is best exemplified actually by JP Morgan's fleecing of Jefferson County.
EDIT: To add, the point of the financial industry is to efficiently allocate capital so make the whole engine run. For this, we allow them to compensate themselves generously. That is not what it does anymore. The financial industry exists to enrich itself.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
One of the many reasons why credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations are bad isn't because they hedge, but because the hedge can be used to call on more derivatives and you create a situation where you can very heavily leverage something.
and also because the rating agencies really fucking dropped the ball on them. you don't rate shit you don't understand AAA
You do when the other option is "if we don't give them an AAA, they'll go to another ratings agency, and we won't get as much money from them."
Or when the rating agency is staffed by idiots and has no idea what they're doing, but somehow get paid $Texas for it anyway.
Actually, the people working there get paid shit for it, which is why everyone working for S&P wants to be working for Goldman Sachs.
Which is like an FBI agent desperately wanting to be a mall cop.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think it's a problem with the language at all. Obviously, my understanding of the word "bonus" is appropriate and correct, in that those individuals in the "consistently paid and makes up a large percentage of your comp" suddenly found out how inconsistent it can be.
Once again, they made the mistake of relying on an uncertainty. I don't care if it's standard practice, this should teach them why it was a bad financial decision and to either re-negotiate their salaries to be more dependable or stable, or begin looking for work in more stable fields.
I don't disagree, except that I do find the plight of people who are suddenly being paid much less than experience and industry practice had led them to believe they would be paid to be sympathetic. I don't think it makes sense to look at someone who made $140k in salary and $300k in bonus for each of the last few years and say that he was irresponsible for not living solely off the base in those years.
I think it's important for you to realize that when we talk about bonuses, we're not talking about the majority of people who get them. Bonuses are fine, they're a thing. What bothers me is when you get a massive bonus after destroying the company/world economy. This is the problem, the extreme examples.
Though I will say that I have as much sympathy for someone who planned their life out on variable bonuses (sure, history says they'd be one thing, but they could always NOT be that thing) as they would ahve for someone who loses their house thanks to variable interest rates. Same principle.
I would say that perhaps the answer would be for professionals to unionize in some fashion. Bonuses shouldn't be 70% of your compensation, they should be a BONUS. My dad was a trucker, and his bonus changed from year to year. Now, we went to the doctor more and were able to pay our bills easier around Christmas time and his anniversary with the company, but we still had to budget as if that bonus didn't exist.
But again, it's a quesiton of scale. Do I feel bad if a guy has to put his kids in public school or for go a vacation? Sure, that's sad for them. But I don't feel nearly as bad for the family that can't afford to take vacations in the first place, or who don't go to the doctor or dentist cause even with the copay it's too expensive or the family that loses their house cause their pay got cut or they got sacked to protect the CEO's bonus.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
I'm not saying the financial services industry shouldn't exist; I'm saying that it shouldn't exist at the scale it currently does. And keep in mind that without the financial services industry, we wouldn't be in the complete shithole we are right now economically.
And while not all of the financial services industry may not be mustache-twirling villains, a metric fuckton of them absolutely are. Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
One of the hardest problems in approaching these issues is the chicken and egg relationship of the financial sector and the overall economy. If the financial sector was not so large, maybe we could have avoided the crisis and people would not have lost their jobs, but they also may never have had those jobs in the first place. I don't think we can even imagine what the economy or the world would look like without the financial sector.
Why is everyone so down on Goldman anyway? They were the last investment bank left standing, and their operations (like underwriting and asset management services) are so critical that the market practically would not exist without them.
GS purposefully engages in strict compartmentalization to keeps things...smooth within the firm. This is part of the culture they perpetuate. While some of the services they have add value a handful at the helm can pull shit off like toxic CDSs. I don't like GS, at all and it's not just because they short my companies stock every quarter. They have built their operations such that they can do whatever it is they like with the instruments they create and they get to tell everyone else how to play their game.
Why is everyone so down on Goldman anyway? They were the last investment bank left standing, and their operations (like underwriting and asset management services) are so critical that the market practically would not exist without them.
Edit: and to clarify, that's just the stuff that no one has a bullshit defense about (they still quibble over Greece) that I know of and that is specifically illegal as opposed to all the stuff that's just unethical.
Boring7 on
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
When I said unusual, I meant for people with similiar upbringings to my own. Also, in case this was not clear, I may well have known "real" poor people in college, but would not have known, since people were not living at home. It isn't that I went through life not thinking I knew poor people, just that my view of what poor meant was really skewed because I just was not around people who were actually poor (living in one of the wealthiest counties in America creates a pretty serious bar to entry if you don't have at least some money). Even the town everyone considered "poor" and "dangerous" has an average home value of over $300k, median income of around $60k and pretty low crime (but since it has more of an "urban" appearance and isn't 90%+ white, everyone was scared to be there at night). When you live in an area like that, you just don't encounter people who are actually poor unless you set out to do so.
I take a tremendous amount of happiness in this; glee, even.
These are the people who are getting hit by this:
Like, the only thing that would make me happier is if they were getting fired, and not getting unemployment or severance. These are awful fucking people, who deliberately chose to work in an industry where their job consists of "fuck over as many people as possible to make as much money as possible." I want to see them fucking burn. The best thing that could happen for us as a society would be if finance became seen as an industry where there is no future.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
I'm not saying the financial services industry shouldn't exist; I'm saying that it shouldn't exist at the scale it currently does. And keep in mind that without the financial services industry, we wouldn't be in the complete shithole we are right now economically.
And while not all of the financial services industry may not be mustache-twirling villains, a metric fuckton of them absolutely are. Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
One of the hardest problems in approaching these issues is the chicken and egg relationship of the financial sector and the overall economy. If the financial sector was not so large, maybe we could have avoided the crisis and people would not have lost their jobs, but they also may never have had those jobs in the first place. I don't think we can even imagine what the economy or the world would look like without the financial sector.
Actually we do know what it would look like. It's called "the past". The recent past in fact. It's only in the last few decades that the Financial Sector has become the abomination we know today.
What's most important to realise though is that the financial sector exists to serve us, through the economy, not themselves. They are a system we allow to exist because the way they make money can benefit the economy as a whole. The places where it doesn't simply shouldn't exist because they serve no purpose.
And the biggest change in the financial sector of the past 3 decades or so has been a HUGE movement towards things that make a very tiny percentage of people money and actively fuck over everyone else.
Which is exactly why you should have zero sympathy for these people. Because they are literally societal leeches, destroying peoples lives and wrecking the economy for personal gain. They exist to enrich themselves and the small fraction of people who exist within their industry and that's it. And they do so at the expense of the economy as a whole. It's parasitism.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
When you go to a small sandwich joint on your lunch break; the guy serving you is poor. Buy groceries? the bag boy is poor. You've met poor people man, we all did.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
I'm kinda like this too, I've always lived in a nice and wealthy neighborhood. I never knew someone who on food stamps, etc. But what I took from the "I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter" comment is that he'd probably have to go do some volunteer work at a kitchen, which I did throughout high school, and in college I would file tax returns for people with lower to middle incomes.
So I guess that shows how sociopathic I am?
tyrannus on
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
I'm like this too, I've always lived in a nice and wealthy neighborhood. I never knew someone who on food stamps, etc. But what I took from the "I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter" comment is that he'd probably have to go do some volunteer work at a kitchen, which I did throughout high school, and in college I would file tax returns for people with lower to middle incomes.
So I guess that shows how sociopathic I am?
I think the better take away is that you meet poor people all the time and probably have no idea. You literally cannot move for poors in America, not unless you hole up on Martha's Vineyard or something.
TheOrange pointed out some good points, any service or business you use is probably staffed by poor people.
Now, abject poverty? Sure, that's a little hard to come by. But you don't know who is or isn't. I really doubt anybody I went to high school with knew I was on food stamps.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
I'm like this too, I've always lived in a nice and wealthy neighborhood. I never knew someone who on food stamps, etc. But what I took from the "I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter" comment is that he'd probably have to go do some volunteer work at a kitchen, which I did throughout high school, and in college I would file tax returns for people with lower to middle incomes.
So I guess that shows how sociopathic I am?
I think the better take away is that you meet poor people all the time and probably have no idea. You literally cannot move for poors in America, not unless you hole up on Martha's Vineyard or something.
TheOrange pointed out some good points, any service or business you use is probably staffed by poor people.
Now, abject poverty? Sure, that's a little hard to come by. But you don't know who is or isn't. I really doubt anybody I went to high school with knew I was on food stamps.
Poors is people, too.
Well, that's kinda what I mean. You don't really know unless you ask, or if it's so blaringly obvious from context, and asking is kinda rude.
"Most of us judge poor people" that's pretty interesting that they would start an article like that, it must hold a lot of weight.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
I'm like this too, I've always lived in a nice and wealthy neighborhood. I never knew someone who on food stamps, etc. But what I took from the "I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter" comment is that he'd probably have to go do some volunteer work at a kitchen, which I did throughout high school, and in college I would file tax returns for people with lower to middle incomes.
So I guess that shows how sociopathic I am?
I think the better take away is that you meet poor people all the time and probably have no idea. You literally cannot move for poors in America, not unless you hole up on Martha's Vineyard or something.
TheOrange pointed out some good points, any service or business you use is probably staffed by poor people.
Now, abject poverty? Sure, that's a little hard to come by. But you don't know who is or isn't. I really doubt anybody I went to high school with knew I was on food stamps.
Poors is people, too.
Well, that's kinda what I mean. You don't really know unless you ask, or if it's so blaringly obvious from context, and asking is kinda rude.
Depends how you ask. Poor people are less worried about talking about money than the wealthy classes.
0
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2012
I think statements like, "I've never met a poor person," sound like a Romney campaign gaffe. There is no context in which that's not a terrible, out of touch thing to say.
As TheOrange pointed out, if you've ever bought groceries, filled up on gas, ordered take out, you've met poor people. That you didn't take this into account says a lot about you; they're invisible, non-existent.
Posts
The risk of their actions? Do we really think pursuing a job in finance is dangerous, especially with respect to people who took the job after spending their entire college careers seeing bonuses be paid consistently?
Every job is a risk. The fact these guys weren't taught to use their money wisely in a field where money is the main subject is certainly a flaw that needs to be addressed, whether it's them or their classes.
If I'm reading you correctly they get paid many bonuses through the year rather then at once, which is bullshit. Their salaries shouldn't be any different in format then the lower class employees in other fields especially when they're a much greater drain on the company's resources financially.
I am curious, how exactly do you envision highly paid executives in the financial sector, or any sector for that manner, to have an effect on other sectors compensation? Or did you mean that high executive pay exerts downward pressure on employees that are not within the executive tract?
and how do you even prove that an employee is a "great drain" on the company's resources? If your traders are bringing in bank, then they're doing there jobs and are adding value to the company. and how do you even compare services across professions? A computer programmer, an IT auditor, and a derivative trader are all going to have different ways that they add value. You'd be hard pressed to estimate exactly how much.
In my experience its on my W2 lumped within my wages
You have illustrated the "rub" in the situation. Not everyone goes to get an education in how to get a masters in shitheadery. Are you opposed to the idea of stock/bonds/futures or just the recent exposure of a minority in the industry that seek to do nothing but exploit financial wizardry, which proved to be quite caustic to the economy?
No, I think $140k in salary is enough to get by perfectly fine, and that the $300k bonuses shouldn't have been counted on. They took the risk to count on that $300k bonus. The bonus which, by vary nature of being a bonus, is not guaranteed. They should have lived below that $300k, making sure that all expenses are taken care of with that $140k. Use the $300k for luxuries only. You know, like normal people do (by paying off the massive amount of debt they have or having a good meal for once).
Complaining about it is like someone complaining about their car being towed when they parked in the handicapped spot. They knew that risk, they still took it.
You do realize that the financial industry isn't all villains twirling their mustaches while plotting to steal family farms from little old ladies, right? The financial industry enables companies to grow through equity financing, debt financing, public offerings, and securitizing corporate assets. Without people enabling all of these activities, our pensions would be grossly underfunded, companies would not be able to expand, many companies would go out of business, and many companies would not even exist.
Ohoho! But it's so much more then that! Your job is to invent new ways to move money so that you can take pile A from Billionaire B, and spread it among so many different investments, insurance, etc. so that it becomes literally impossible for the Billionaire to lose cash even if the investment craters. That's what Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations are about isn't it? New and complex ways to bet twice on an investment so win/lose you still get $TEXAS in annual returns regardless?
So basically, your job is all about exploring new bold frontiers of shit-headedness in finding ways to ensure that no matter what the Mega-Rich always rake in huge returns on their investments regardless of the human cost. That may backfire though if Greece is any indication. Moody's already declared it a default even if the ISDA won't, which means that if this starts a trend we may finally be able to cut some fat from the finance sector.
and also because the rating agencies really fucking dropped the ball on them. you don't rate shit you don't understand AAA
In many countries, bonuses are treated differently from salary, but in America we treat them the same, other than for certain special tax rules.
And while not all of the financial services industry may not be mustache-twirling villains, a metric fuckton of them absolutely are. Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
Shut the fuck up and be thankful your ass isn't in jail because you bought the fucking government.
Or when the rating agency is staffed by idiots and has no idea what they're doing, but somehow get paid $Texas for it anyway.
The psychological poverty trap
http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-psychological-poverty-trap-1.414260
Snippet:
More behind the link. It's a long article, and every single paragraph is gold. I love this in particular:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
One thing I think it really funny is I just got back from India, and some other people from the states that have been there would be like "oh my god, wasn't the poverty so shocking?"
And I'm not trying to dismiss it, because there are many people there without access to running water, electricity and medicine that the poor here do have. But it made me feel like many people in the states have never crossed the lines of economic segregation. Because poverty in the states can be really fucking desperate and scary, and not much I saw in India shocked me in the least being around the pjs in Brooklyn which aren't even as bad as they were 10 years ago.
In India they just haven't bothered hiding it, which is upon reflecting what seems to go on here. When its like "oh those people will hurt me, i would never set foot around there" so poverty doesn't even exist for them. This, in turn must make it really easy to blame people for being poor. I guess I didn't realize that the vast majority of people with money felt that the poor are poor because they are deficient. I would figure that wealthy people would tend to be educated well enough to realize that the way the system is set up, poverty is inevitable.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
One of the hardest problems in approaching these issues is the chicken and egg relationship of the financial sector and the overall economy. If the financial sector was not so large, maybe we could have avoided the crisis and people would not have lost their jobs, but they also may never have had those jobs in the first place. I don't think we can even imagine what the economy or the world would look like without the financial sector.
Why is everyone so down on Goldman anyway? They were the last investment bank left standing, and their operations (like underwriting and asset management services) are so critical that the market practically would not exist without them.
Which, coincidentally, has led that county to being unable to prosecute high profile murder cases.
They're awful, totally amoral people.
EDIT: To add, the point of the financial industry is to efficiently allocate capital so make the whole engine run. For this, we allow them to compensate themselves generously. That is not what it does anymore. The financial industry exists to enrich itself.
Which is like an FBI agent desperately wanting to be a mall cop.
Our society is definitely super stratified. I literally don't think I've ever really known a poor person, since the people I thought of as "poor" growing up were the ones in the smaller, older houses in the rich part of town. I did not even know anyone else. Then in college and law school, if people were poor I did not see it. Professionally, I was always either working with wealthy people on my start up, or on trading, and then I became a lawyer at a big firm. I didn't go out of my way to avoid the poor. That was just a natural side effect of my life. I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter the poor, and I don't think my experience is unusual at all.
I think it's important for you to realize that when we talk about bonuses, we're not talking about the majority of people who get them. Bonuses are fine, they're a thing. What bothers me is when you get a massive bonus after destroying the company/world economy. This is the problem, the extreme examples.
Though I will say that I have as much sympathy for someone who planned their life out on variable bonuses (sure, history says they'd be one thing, but they could always NOT be that thing) as they would ahve for someone who loses their house thanks to variable interest rates. Same principle.
I would say that perhaps the answer would be for professionals to unionize in some fashion. Bonuses shouldn't be 70% of your compensation, they should be a BONUS. My dad was a trucker, and his bonus changed from year to year. Now, we went to the doctor more and were able to pay our bills easier around Christmas time and his anniversary with the company, but we still had to budget as if that bonus didn't exist.
But again, it's a quesiton of scale. Do I feel bad if a guy has to put his kids in public school or for go a vacation? Sure, that's sad for them. But I don't feel nearly as bad for the family that can't afford to take vacations in the first place, or who don't go to the doctor or dentist cause even with the copay it's too expensive or the family that loses their house cause their pay got cut or they got sacked to protect the CEO's bonus.
I definitely do not want to jump on you for the random circumstances of your birth - seeing as you had just as much control over being born where you were as anyone else in the world - but I really think you are a little careless about statements like the bolded above. You honestly don't have the intellectual or interpersonal perspective to consider that a life where you'd have to go out of your way to encounter poor folks is unusual? Because if that's the case, that's utterly terrifying and betrays a worldview that is borderline sociopathic - perhaps vindicating the studies that compare the minds of wealthy individuals to that of the criminally insane.
I'm willing to consider that maybe you meant unusual in a different way, like you don't find anything inherently wrong with it, not that you actually think it is a normal kind of upbringing. Right?
GS purposefully engages in strict compartmentalization to keeps things...smooth within the firm. This is part of the culture they perpetuate. While some of the services they have add value a handful at the helm can pull shit off like toxic CDSs. I don't like GS, at all and it's not just because they short my companies stock every quarter. They have built their operations such that they can do whatever it is they like with the instruments they create and they get to tell everyone else how to play their game.
Last I checked there were no prosecutions or even charges over this. I admit it has been a while...
Edit: and to clarify, that's just the stuff that no one has a bullshit defense about (they still quibble over Greece) that I know of and that is specifically illegal as opposed to all the stuff that's just unethical.
When I said unusual, I meant for people with similiar upbringings to my own. Also, in case this was not clear, I may well have known "real" poor people in college, but would not have known, since people were not living at home. It isn't that I went through life not thinking I knew poor people, just that my view of what poor meant was really skewed because I just was not around people who were actually poor (living in one of the wealthiest counties in America creates a pretty serious bar to entry if you don't have at least some money). Even the town everyone considered "poor" and "dangerous" has an average home value of over $300k, median income of around $60k and pretty low crime (but since it has more of an "urban" appearance and isn't 90%+ white, everyone was scared to be there at night). When you live in an area like that, you just don't encounter people who are actually poor unless you set out to do so.
It seems myopic when you look at it logically, but it must stem from an awareness of something.
I guess it is possible it's just a product of fear mongering though.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
Actually we do know what it would look like. It's called "the past". The recent past in fact. It's only in the last few decades that the Financial Sector has become the abomination we know today.
What's most important to realise though is that the financial sector exists to serve us, through the economy, not themselves. They are a system we allow to exist because the way they make money can benefit the economy as a whole. The places where it doesn't simply shouldn't exist because they serve no purpose.
And the biggest change in the financial sector of the past 3 decades or so has been a HUGE movement towards things that make a very tiny percentage of people money and actively fuck over everyone else.
Which is exactly why you should have zero sympathy for these people. Because they are literally societal leeches, destroying peoples lives and wrecking the economy for personal gain. They exist to enrich themselves and the small fraction of people who exist within their industry and that's it. And they do so at the expense of the economy as a whole. It's parasitism.
When you go to a small sandwich joint on your lunch break; the guy serving you is poor. Buy groceries? the bag boy is poor. You've met poor people man, we all did.
I'm kinda like this too, I've always lived in a nice and wealthy neighborhood. I never knew someone who on food stamps, etc. But what I took from the "I would have had to make an effort to actually encounter" comment is that he'd probably have to go do some volunteer work at a kitchen, which I did throughout high school, and in college I would file tax returns for people with lower to middle incomes.
So I guess that shows how sociopathic I am?
I think the better take away is that you meet poor people all the time and probably have no idea. You literally cannot move for poors in America, not unless you hole up on Martha's Vineyard or something.
TheOrange pointed out some good points, any service or business you use is probably staffed by poor people.
Now, abject poverty? Sure, that's a little hard to come by. But you don't know who is or isn't. I really doubt anybody I went to high school with knew I was on food stamps.
Poors is people, too.
Depends how you ask. Poor people are less worried about talking about money than the wealthy classes.
As TheOrange pointed out, if you've ever bought groceries, filled up on gas, ordered take out, you've met poor people. That you didn't take this into account says a lot about you; they're invisible, non-existent.