[granodemostasa]

it depends on the type of military spending, i think.... 450 billion for research and development of new technologies could be very useful... 450 billion in tanks is alot of wasted steel.

keep in mind that the american population can be far more educated and productive than we are now. simply put, the top of society usually produce children that 80-90 percent go to college, while the bottom produces the exact opposite, this doesn't mean that those born to lower income places are inherently stupid, it simply means they are not given the same opportunities. while, it is probably a bad policy to invest 100 percent in college degrees, we can do far more than we are doing now..... and such an effort, more than military spending, will benefit America's stature in the next 100 years.

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandenigma1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice little noob bonus I suppose... though they might have a limit on months you had to work in order to be eligible for it... that said hopefully the old top boss is still around and will be able to reap some of the benefits

The old top boss, btw, is no longer around. He's rather busy settling into his new job as the Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush.

To be clear, Blankfein has been with Goldman Sachs for over 20 years and prior to his assent to the CEO position, he was the head of GS's trading business. Trading and principal investments, and not traditional investment banking advisory, were what generated the bulk (some 70% I believe) of GS's recent profits.

Blankfein made a reported $20mm in 2003. It makes sense that he would make far more now, given his increased responsibilities as CEO and that this last year was a yet another fantastic year for Goldman Sachs and the street as a whole.

Just to put his $50mm in perspective, let's not forget that the other guys (Mack at Morgan Stanley, O'Neil at Merrill Lynch, Fuld at LEH, etc.,) made $30 - 40mm last year. And this year was better than last year. And GS is clearly the market leader. I also bet Blankfein won't be the highest paid CEO on the Street this year either. The other guys have yet to report.

Finally, the bonus isn't just a check. It's a good chunk stock options in the company.

As for the $100mm in bonuses... well, if I were one of the handful of people who might get that amount (and it is just a handful), you bet I'd want that amount when my business generated far more than that in profits for the firm. Otherwise, you just pick up the telephone and within a week you'd be running your own hedge fund or private equity fund and making far more money anyway.

Really... what's a joke is that Ray Irani made over $60mm last year as CEO of Occidental Oil. Take a look at the executive compensation lists and there are many other people who I would target first as not deserving the money.

I wonder how much those YouTube guys pocketed (figuratively) when they sold their company. I'd rather have that than a Wall Street bonus any day.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif Among African Americans the percentage of households earning 5K or under has doubled over the past 20 years, to around 13-16 percent. (Keep in mind this doesn’t include inflation.) Among the general population, the amounts making under 5K has doubled as well, to around 4.4 percent. This, in part, explains why the bottom 40 percent of Americans have lost gone from about 17.6 percent of personal income to 15.5, while the top has gone from 40.9 percent to 43.7 The median weekly income has actually dropped from 500 per week to 475 per week in real dollars, despite the major influx of women into the workforce and the emergence of the two earner households. Poverty levels were 11 percent in the early 70s, around 18 percent in the 90s and have climbed into the 20s in the last 6 years. in hte past 6 years, the rate of families in poverty has gone from 25 to 28 percent. My point is that the poor are actually getting poorer! This is not a case, as it was in the 50s and 60s, of all boats rising with the tide; something drastically different is happening with this latest round of economic expansion. btw: the numbers are from the census, some from the wsj and consumer reports. also: poverty is relative to the formula one is using, the most generous one actually puts it at 12.8 percent, still higher than 20 years ago, and higher than 6 years ago, before the 2001 recession.

say you have a population of 100, and everyone makes $100 this year.

next year, everyone but one makes $90. the one guy out makes $2000. the average income of the population has increased by about $9.... sadly the people who are making only 90% of what they made last year are only making 90%...

edited because i cant do math good.

 

[AndyRx7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Easy to say. But please report back here if ever you win the lottery. I'd like to know what you would really do with $100 million when it's actually in your hands. In the meantime, you can blow as much smoke as you want to. I'm curious. Do you give 50% of your present income to charity? If so, then this kind of extreme statement would have a lot more credibility.

I don't earn any income now

Anyways, I'm sorry but you don't understand what I said. Even I did earn income, I wouldn't even need to give any of it to charity to be consistent with my theory (as long as my salary was low enough). My whole hypothesis is that beyond a certain threshold level, absolute income level is irrelevant to happiness. In other words, I don't think I would be any happier if I had $100 million than if I had $1 million. Hence my point about giving away 99% of it.

It has nothing to do with extreme altruism, as in the case of someone who earns a low salary and gives 50% away (which I would not do). It has to do with realizing that obscene salaries are nothing to be jealous of, unless you pursue money as an addiction, or as an easy way into political power or whatever. My goal is to live a happy life, and I believe that to be uncorrelated with income beyond a threshold.

 

[discord]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Frankly, the "average joe" has no business in college. Hell, many of the "slightly above average joes" that currently go to college don't do a damned thing except dilute the college cirruculum and burn up taxpayer money before dropping out with large debts. Paying for college for those who are capable of succeeding and emphasizing trade schools for those that aren't would be far more productive than "universal college".

They should at least get a fair shot at it anyways. You make it out as if their stepping on holy ground or something.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

keep in mind that the american population can be far more educated and productive than we are now. simply put, the top of society usually produce children that 80-90 percent go to college, while the bottom produces the exact opposite, this doesn't mean that those born to lower income places are inherently stupid, it simply means they are not given the same opportunities. while, it is probably a bad policy to invest 100 percent in college degrees, we can do far more than we are doing now..... and such an effort, more than military spending, will benefit America's stature in the next 100 years.

Re: the possibility of the poor contributing more to society by becoming more educated:

College is not the place for this. With 43% of people below the poverty line are functionally illiterate (see The State of Literacy in America by the NIL), college for these people is not the answer.

There's also the nasty issue of heritability. Inevitably, some people will draw the short end of the genetic stick and will be incapable of successfully completing a college level education. These people tend to marry others in similar situations, and given the heritability, their children are unlikely to be much better off then they are. Many of these people reside in the bottom income brackets. I won't hazard a guess at what percentage of the poor they make up, but I'm guessing it's a significant amount and they represent a significant challenge to the "college for everyone" idea. Not all of the poor are down on their luck or lazy. Some were born genetically disadvantaged, and in a competitive capitalist society, they'll remain poor.

Re: Effects of military spending

We'll just have to disagree to avoid dragging this discussion deeper into political territory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by discord /img/forum/go_quote.gif They should at least get a fair shot at it anyways. You make it out as if their stepping on holy ground or something.

Hardly. I have a rather intense dislike for academia, but that's another story.

The issue I have with the current college system is that there is intense pressure to go to college on many people who have no business going. They go against their will, spend most of their time drinking away their loan money, and leave a year or two later with large debts.

Course, their debts are nowhere near as large as the amount of money universities waste on attempting to educate their sorry asses. This drains massive amounts of resources that would be better spent on improving the quality of education for the ones that are already there, and for funding the studies of the disadvantaged who cannot afford to attend college.

Yes, I'm cynical when it comes to the college system, but that's because I've seen the research. Just look at William Bowen's research on the matter to see how bad it's gotten. When a paltry 54% of incoming college students end up graduating after six years (from Bowen's research) even though college has gotten easier, something tells me the system is broken.

 

[Scotty757]

While I agree with a lot of what is being said here, lets keep it out of politics (which military spending and state-funded schooling certainly are), and focus on the issue: bankers making 9-figure salaries.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif So it's OK to be successful, but not too successful? It's OK to be middle class but not OK to be upper class? That's some messed up thinking.

Gotta agree here. I can see why many people say that that kind of money is unnecessary and it probably is, but the fact is who cares? It's not like these people are sitting around doing nothing to get that paycheck. It's their life, their job, and it's their money. If they want to work 80-100 hours a week, why should we discount them for that? Why should we say that the fact that they are earning this kind of money makes them "company whores"? If it's important to them, why should they not work for it?

Some of the reasoning posted so far make people who have earned a good wage out to be the devil. My family is about middle class and is far from earning anywhere near any of even the smallest of those bonuses, but I don't think that people who have earned themselves a few creature comforts in life are the devil and should be frowned upon by the community. If anything, it gives me something to work towards, something to strive and earn.

If you're happy with your life and don't care about these kind of niceties, that's perfectly fine, if you would rather spend time at home or with your family that is awesome and I respect you for that, but don't harp on and criticize others for having a different opinion on life and monetary value.

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm going to have to call BS on this claim..... sorta (since the middle class is starting to fold as well). i'll get back to you with the numbers...

I think what Duggeh was saying probably rings true for the UK. My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the US, if you fall (or worse, never climb off the bottom rung) there is nobody there to catch you, so the poor are VERY poor.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRx7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't earn any income now Anyways, I'm sorry but you don't understand what I said. Even I did earn income, I wouldn't even need to give any of it to charity to be consistent with my theory (as long as my salary was low enough). My whole hypothesis is that beyond a certain threshold level, absolute income level is irrelevant to happiness. In other words, I don't think I would be any happier if I had $100 million than if I had $1 million. Hence my point about giving away 99% of it. It has nothing to do with extreme altruism, as in the case of someone who earns a low salary and gives 50% away (which I would not do). It has to do with realizing that obscene salaries are nothing to be jealous of, unless you pursue money as an addiction, or as an easy way into political power or whatever. My goal is to live a happy life, and I believe that to be uncorrelated with income beyond a threshold.

Ok, gothca! Well stated, and your point is well taken.

I still don't think you would give away $99 million and keep only $1 million if presented with the opportunity in a real way rather than in a hypothetical manner as you've presented it. But that's another matter, I guess.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif those guys have no life. i enjoy my tower of power far more than they do dreaming that they were on their yacht while they pull another all nighter at work.

Well.. the several-decades earlier they get to retire might make up for that.. =\

 

[zachary80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by puiah11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You want to help average joe, kill military spending and make college education mandatory.

Make it so everyone goes to college, that way those of us who have currently worked to go there and gotten scholarships can have our degrees, a huge form of signaling, reduced to almost no value

Also, one of the reasons I think we should have a government at all (especially in its current from) is for our military. Maybe cut it, but please don't kill it

PS
I see no reason to argue these points. This is a very different viewpoint, and neither of us are likely to agree. You had to expect a similar response...

 

[Usagi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, gothca! Well stated, and your point is well taken. I still don't think you would give away $99 million and keep only $1 million if presented with the opportunity in a real way rather than in a hypothetical manner as you've presented it. But that's another matter, I guess.

I think you misunderstood him. AndyRx7 didn't “fully” explain where the money was going. He would donate the $99 million to a recently established AndyRx7 Foundation; a nonprofit organization. This would be used as a tax write-off which surprisingly allows for the $1 million in his pocket to be untouched by the federal government.

It would be safe to say that this nonprofit organization needs to house, clothe, and feed its CEO, AndyRx7.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usagi /img/forum/go_quote.gif It would be safe to say that this nonprofit organization needs to house, clothe, and feed its CEO, AndyRx7.

Not to mention the necessity of an Orpheus in every room of the house, including the john! Because everyone knows...one really should be listening to the best when taking care of business.

 

[The Monkey]

jjcha, wmcmanus, jahn:

In your experience, how much harder are the IBers working than biglaw associates, if at all? Is their quality of life that much worse?