|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Yesterday, a certain perplexing article came out on Bloomberg News. The piece essentially amounted to a handful of finance professionals lamenting their six-figure paychecks that just got a big hit. The details about one finance executive is particularly disturbing.
Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country’s top 1 percent by income, doesn’t cover his family’s private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex. [sic] His 10-year- old daughter is a student at $32,000-a-year Poly Prep Country Day School in Brooklyn. His son, 7, will apply in a few years. [sic] The family rents a three-bedroom summer house in Connecticut and will go there again this year for one month instead of four. Schiff said he brings home less than $200,000 after taxes, health-insurance and 401(k) contributions. The closing costs, renovation and down payment on one of the $1.5 million 17-foot-wide row houses nearby, what he called “the low rung on the brownstone ladder,” would consume “every dime” of the family’s savings, he said.
I'm sure many of us will have a reaction along the lines of "What a spoiled son of a -----!" which is certainly a legitimate reaction. Most of us could only dream of what material and worldly possessions said Mr. Schiff has amassed. It's to be expected that we should feel outraged at this man's sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation for his good fortune. But this is nothing new. We've always known that many bankers make boatloads of money that the common man feels is unjustified, and that these people aren't too apologetic for their wealth. However, I think there another issue at hand - one that utterly perplexes me. It's one thing to be in the so called 1%, but it's entirely another to be lamenting your misfortune, publicly about taking a financial hit and... still being in the 1%. I imagine that these people, including Mr Schiff, are intelligent and hard working people. One typically doesn't accidentally run into a mid-six figure salary. Why such supposed 'smart' people would make comments that don't help their own situation at all is befuddling to me. A person being selfish and self-centered is nothing new and not really something I can blame anyone for; it's basically in our nature to be so. But if you're selfish and intelligent, for crying out loud take it all the way! How could saying these things to a reporter for a national news outlet possibly help Mr. Schiff accomplish his goals of (a) making more money, or (b) paying less taxes? Did he really think that because this is Bloomberg news, he'd get votes of sympathy[1]? After all, most people reading the story are going to be closer to the 'Average American' than the Wall Street elite.
Most people can only dream of Wall Street’s shrinking paychecks. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
The woe-is-me attitude of the finance execs in this story does not surprise me. If you look hard enough, there is probably some spec of legitimacy in their laments[2]. But their utter stupidity in making their thoughts public is something that I just cannot wrap my head around. If you have an agenda to make more money, have more money, and keep more money, then your actions should align with your ambitions. This article will only fuel the general population's fire of hate and angst towards the finance industry. I am positive that 99% of the finance industry would have declined to be in this article. In a twist of irony for Mr. Schiff and others, it would seem that they not only find themselves in the top 1% of wealth, but they also find themselves in the top 1% of cluelessness within their own industry.
[1] It's been less than 24 hours since the story went live, and there are now 1238 comments on the original article - much more than I have ever seen on Bloomberg.com - and I am sure that most of them resemble hate mail rather than condolences.[2] Exactly how much you empathize will of course depend on the person.
Crossposted from my main blog
  
|
I'm pretty pissed off myself. I've had to switch from eating a 12 inch subway sub for lunch, to a 6 inch because of finances. 6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch subs.
|
I think you give the rich too much credit by assuming they obtained their wealth by being smart. There are lots of smart rich people, but there are also lots of stupid rich people who became rich through inheritance, family connections/legacies, etc.
And point B, he can say whatever he wants without worrying about his wealth. Rich man complaining about money won't make money go away. It will make poor and middle class folk complain and feel pissed off, but thats about it.
|
On March 02 2012 02:21 0123456789 wrote:
I'm pretty pissed off myself. I've had to switch from eating a 12 inch subway sub for lunch, to a 6 inch because of finances. 6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch subs.
Pack your subs and you can eat 6 12inches for the price of 1! 
Also nice blog, it's confusing why he would state this. Just to show off I guess? I don't think he will get any sympathy and shouldn't.
|
I always love reading your blogs ^^
While I can understand that a person can spend their own money however they please (after all, it is their own money, so I shouldn't be able to tell them how to live their lives), it's always amusing to see the rich and famous- those who have the luxury of having every luxury they desire- eventually complain about only being able to afford 95% of their riches, while so many others have always lived far more humble lifestyles.
They don't know what it's like to have it tough. Hell, I don't either, and I'm one of three sons living at home off a single mother's shitty teacher's salary. And even I don't complain when we have to make some sacrifices.
|
I don't see people being apologetic about having internet access to read the article, a privilege billions of people around the world cannot afford. They just choose to bitch about those who have achieved more, though I'm surprised to see that point of view in your blog.
|
On March 02 2012 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I think you give the rich too much credit by assuming they obtained their wealth by being smart. There are lots of smart rich people, but there are also lots of stupid rich people who became rich through inheritance, family connections/legacies, etc.
And point B, he can say whatever he wants without worrying about his wealth. Rich man complaining about money won't make money go away. It will make poor and middle class folk complain and feel pissed off, but thats about it.
It's not about the amount of wealth, it's about how much they earn. Even then though there are people that don't do shit and make tons.
|
8751 Posts
About your blog: I agree completely and it's a good point.
edit: Soap made the same point two posts above me.
Off topic, but in response to the consensus view of the comments on the article on the Bloomberg site: I'd love to see the American lower class who deny the relativity of suffering justify their hardships to people literally dying of starvation and dehydration. I can't imagine anyone with access to the internet and spare time to read and write a response to a Bloomberg article has any grounds for denying the truth of the relativity of suffering.
|
I couldn't stop laughing when I read this yesterday. Its like that one senator (house rep?) whining about how he couldn't afford to feed his family on something like $850k a year. Also really pathetic that the people in the articles have mortgages so they can skip out on paying extra tax money, but then turn around and bitch to Bloomberg on their "disadvantages".
|
Really interesting article, Thanks for sharing!! I agree with most of your points and yea i can't believe how many comments are already on their website lol.
|
I think that one of the problems with finance in America is that it is much easier to make a larger percentage gain if you have a lot of money.
i.e.
If you have 100$, you can safely make $5 by investing intelligently in one year.
If you have 1000$, you can safely make $80 by investing intelligently in that year.
Not only is the amount that you make greater by having a greater principle (amount that you could invest), but the percentage gain is higher.
While this is normal to expect in a healthy economy, in the US, the return on investment that the "1%'ers" can make is much larger than the return on investment that the others can make. All this while lobbying congress for lower taxes in times where arguably more money is needed by the government.
So it's not a question of whether the rich are intelligent or not, it's a question of if this system has come to the point that there is an utter lack of economic mobility (that is, the ability for the poor to become rich). Sure the poor can get more money, and once in awhile there'll be a couple of people that burst through the ranks to the very rich, but the rich get more money. It's getting to the point where the poor cannot move into the middle class (which is shrinking).
Of course, the US is in a "first world problem" situation, as the relative wealth in the US is much higher than in other countries. We're arguing over whether a few can live their dream lives, or more people can live great lives.
In response to the article, it's obvious that the guy is complaining because he has to pick among which elements of his "dream life" that he wants to keep. The financial situation forces some people to change their lifestyle, and nobody likes change. Most likely there are some or a lot of us that live in privileged situations. We're used to the lifestyle that we have. If asked to cut 14% of it out, we would complain. In other words, just because he is rich, I don't think he lost his right to complain about the adjustments he has to make (it just will have little-no effect on the public).
|
On March 02 2012 02:37 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I think you give the rich too much credit by assuming they obtained their wealth by being smart. There are lots of smart rich people, but there are also lots of stupid rich people who became rich through inheritance, family connections/legacies, etc.
And point B, he can say whatever he wants without worrying about his wealth. Rich man complaining about money won't make money go away. It will make poor and middle class folk complain and feel pissed off, but thats about it. It's not about the amount of wealth, it's about how much they earn. Even then though there are people that don't do shit and make tons.
Once you have a certain amount of money, it can be invested in various ways that its interest and growth enough on its own to live richly. That's how super-rich folk can continue to earn huge figures without raising a finger.
|
On March 02 2012 02:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Off topic, but in response to the consensus view of the comments on the article on the Bloomberg site: I'd love to see the American lower class who deny the relativity of suffering justify their hardships to people literally dying of starvation and dehydration. I can't imagine anyone with access to the internet and spare time to read and write a response to a Bloomberg article has any grounds for denying the truth of the relativity of suffering.
I absolutely agree.
|
I saw this article as a post on reddit under the title "Yahoo News version of first-world problems"
Liked the blog. It blows my mind that people complain about being in the 1%. When has an economy ever taken a downturn such that the richest of the rich suffer losses while the rest of the population profits? Apart from actual Proletariat revolutions, I can think of none.
|
On March 02 2012 02:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
About your blog: I agree completely and it's a good point.
edit: Soap made the same point two posts above me.
Off topic, but in response to the consensus view of the comments on the article on the Bloomberg site: I'd love to see the American lower class who deny the relativity of suffering justify their hardships to people literally dying of starvation and dehydration. I can't imagine anyone with access to the internet and spare time to read and write a response to a Bloomberg article has any grounds for denying the truth of the relativity of suffering.
I agree. It's a question of whether someone gets another boat, or whether a group of people can get ipods. If spending priorities are correct (prioritizing food, education,other good stuffs), everybody in the US is a long ways ahead of almost every other country.
|
Honestly, I don't think this article is terribly surprising or insulting. They're just people whose income has been cut drastically, and now they have to cut back on the luxuries or services they've enjoyed, which is difficult or upsetting to anyone regardless of how much money you make. The only confusing thing about the whole article is that they would be dumb enough to complain about their situation to a reporter in this economic climate.
Oh, there's one more thing about the article that really struck me-- someone interviewed in the article mentions that most people at his income level don't save any money and mostly just live hand-to-mouth. While I'm sure it's an exaggeration and there are plenty of people who save and invest wisely (I get the feeling they're the ones smart enough to not go out and publicly complain about cuts in their still-massive compensations), it blows my mind that anyone making that much money would be unable to just set side $100k a year as an investment, safety, or retirement fund.
|
On March 02 2012 02:21 0123456789 wrote:
I'm pretty pissed off myself. I've had to switch from eating a 12 inch subway sub for lunch, to a 6 inch because of finances. 6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch subs.
Really? Do we really need sexual innuendos right now?
But people love to complain. While this guy is definitely the embodiment of first world problems, his consumption has also been at an obscene level for many people, and with pay cuts, his salary can no longer match consumption. But rather than scaling back consumption, he compains to the world. A bit out of touch with the rest of the world's financial condition I would say.
|
This blog made me think of this.
MONTREAL — A new study says rich people are more likely to engage in unethical behaviour than their poorer counterparts -- like cutting off motorists, lying in a negotiation and cheating to win a prize.
That's the finding from researchers at the University of California and the University of Toronto, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
|
The OP is actually one of the better responses to this article I've seen. As soon as you ask whether one should feel sorry for the 1% you have gone done a rabbit hole of stupidity. The whole question is irrelevant and misleading.
But I would go even farther than the OP. The problem is the whole idea behind the article. The reporter who wrote this isn't stupid. He didn't write this to share some important information with us. He wrote it to increase page-views by inspiring rage and pushing obvious emotional buttons.
This is universal among newspapers. The worst offenders are of course the tabloids, like the NY Daily News and NY Post. Nearly all of their stories are designed to manipulate and titillate the reader, flattering them by inviting them to participate in condemning the latest trumped up moral outrage.
|
i hear shit like this all the time. i had a client at work that had a real dilemma. she was distraught with the fact that she wouldn't be able to afford the porche cayenne she wanted and had to settle for the range rover evoque which was distressing because one of her friends already had it before she did and didn't want to look like she was copying her.
but genuine distress and such disappointment. i felt like grabbing the bitch by the hair, shaking the shit out of her and screaming "YOU UNGRATEFUL BITCH! JESUS TRY SURVIVING A MONTH ON MY SALARY" but instead had to kiss her ass because she was spending money at the company i work for
Fucking ridiculous and sickening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
