|
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.
|
8748 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.
|
On March 02 2012 03:31 Kukaracha wrote:This blog made me think of this. Show nested quote +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.
I experience that every day at the moment in South Africa...a wealthy minority can be really really annoying. What I see day to day in the supermarkets or in the shops around here...its disgusting.
Edit: eu.exodus, thats what I'm talking about...
|
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.
because we all believe the world revolves around us. even in online games, anyone better than us is "a nerd who has no life" and worse than us is "an untalented noob"
|
On March 02 2012 03:29 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Lol I read it and I seriously though he was talking about sandwiches until you pointed it out O_O
|
Something they only touched on briefly in that article but I think is a main reason for all the fear these guys feel was that none of them are saving any money, 401(k) aside -which really is only for retirement.
"Richard Scheiner, 58, a real-estate investor and hedge-fund manager, said most people on Wall Street don’t save.
“When their means are cut, they’re stuck,” said Scheiner, whose New York-based hedge fund, Lane Gate Partners LLC, was down about 15 percent last year. “Not so much an issue for me and my wife because we’ve always saved.”"
Thats just amazing to me, that these smart people at the top of the heap were so confident they would always make $500k+ that they really didn't save, they have no legitimate way to buffer their bonus salary loss and that is really their own fault. I think its a good highlight as to why people are so angry; these guys made tons of money and spent it all without any real outlook to the future, and that viewpoint is what a lot of people see the financial markets doing in general and blame it for the collapse -perhaps rightly so.
|
Well, in an age of globalized and highly accessible information it's pretty easy to find examples of petty people you don't like. The point you're making (it seems) is that it's dumb to complain to people about these problems when they have much bigger problems (ie the readership, the interviewer, etc), and I agree, but when you're that rich and powerful you probably stop even caring about the feelings of others lol.
Insensitive, but why bother seeking out crappy people to have negative opinions about when you are never going to meet them or put those opinions to use? It is just an exercise in raising your own blood pressure, whilst you sit in a nice heated home knowing when your next meal is, having internet, being otherwise fairly relaxed. Do you really wanna grind your gears that much? I mean it doesn't bother me, I have a home and internet too, you're not making me feel bad by having things, but I'm just wondering about what you actually get out of it.
|
Eh, the only thing I can think of is to scare fellow 1%'s into lobbying for causes that protect there assets? Something along the lines of, "Better straighten this shit out, or it could be YOUR mansion in foreclosure".
Just a shot in the dark.
|
Let me propose another point of view here.
I disagree with the OP, and though my point is somewhat different than Nony's - it's more along his line of thought.
Not that it matters, but my household runs only on my salary, which is just above the national average. I am not anywhere near the top 1%. My biggest expenditures currently are food and rent, which I suspect makes me like most people.
Why would a person allow themselves to go on record as saying they don't feel like they have enough with $350,000?
It could be that he didn't realize $350,000 was a lot of money and that he's a moron. That's possible. It is also possible that it could be that the reporter approached him with the angle of "hey, I'm looking to try to humanize the top 1% in response to the demonizing that has been done in the past and the amount of hate that people who make large amounts of money are taking these days - could you help me with that?" So the person shared his hardships, the reporter reported them in a way which simultaneously seemed like it was accusatory to the bottom 99% and humanizing to the top 1%. The reporter gets a ton of attention, which he deserves for having come up with something so clever. That, to me, seems far more likely.
Along the lines of what Nony is saying, I believe that just about anyone, regardless of salary or hardship, will adapt and come to think of their lives as having good parts and bad parts, parts they love and parts they're afraid of, things which make them happy to be alive, and things which make them wonder if they wouldn't be better off dead. Money doesn't change that. But along divergent lines - shouldn't we just accept that about people and move on? Must we consider this thought to be "man, we're very terrible beings - the extent to which we are terrible is relative" to "it's who we are. Let's stop trying to fight it and start learning to live with it in the most constructive way we can think of?"
Make no mistake - I believe the system providing all this wealth is broken, and needs fixing - and I'm all for that. But along the way, is it really necessary to demonize people who are just being people? Is it really necessary to demonize at all? Can't we just identify the problem and work towards a solution without complaining along the way about how unfair life is (as though all possibilities weren't devoid of an absolute "fairness"), or becoming angsty about our nature as people? This is what we do in starcraft when we see a problem, isn't it?
.... maybe most of us don't... but still, you see my point. 
|
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.
That's what she said.
|
On March 02 2012 04:29 Treehead wrote:Let me propose another point of view here. I disagree with the OP, and though my point is somewhat different than Nony's - it's more along his line of thought. Not that it matters, but my household runs only on my salary, which is just above the national average. I am not anywhere near the top 1%. My biggest expenditures currently are food and rent, which I suspect makes me like most people. Why would a person allow themselves to go on record as saying they don't feel like they have enough with $350,000? It could be that he didn't realize $350,000 was a lot of money and that he's a moron. That's possible. It is also possible that it could be that the reporter approached him with the angle of "hey, I'm looking to try to humanize the top 1% in response to the demonizing that has been done in the past and the amount of hate that people who make large amounts of money are taking these days - could you help me with that?" So the person shared his hardships, the reporter reported them in a way which simultaneously seemed like it was accusatory to the bottom 99% and humanizing to the top 1%. The reporter gets a ton of attention, which he deserves for having come up with something so clever. That, to me, seems far more likely. Along the lines of what Nony is saying, I believe that just about anyone, regardless of salary or hardship, will adapt and come to think of their lives as having good parts and bad parts, parts they love and parts they're afraid of, things which make them happy to be alive, and things which make them wonder if they wouldn't be better off dead. Money doesn't change that. But along divergent lines - shouldn't we just accept that about people and move on? Must we consider this thought to be "man, we're very terrible beings - the extent to which we are terrible is relative" to "it's who we are. Let's stop trying to fight it and start learning to live with it in the most constructive way we can think of?" Make no mistake - I believe the system providing all this wealth is broken, and needs fixing - and I'm all for that. But along the way, is it really necessary to demonize people who are just being people? Is it really necessary to demonize at all? Can't we just identify the problem and work towards a solution without complaining along the way about how unfair life is (as though all possibilities weren't devoid of an absolute "fairness"), or becoming angsty about our nature as people? This is what we do in starcraft when we see a problem, isn't it? .... maybe most of us don't... but still, you see my point.
why shouldnt we demonize them? with the rich setting the rules by which everyone lives, when a millionare sits there saying how tough things are it goes beyond 'lifes hard'. now obviously the guy in the article isnt part of the super wealthy who lobby congress, he's also not the only person talking about being 'hard done by' by the economic climate. its no secret that the american (and probably most countries) tax system is designed by and for the rich. to then complain about having it tough is kinda disgusting. these are the people who without a doubt have both the means and the knowhow to change things and they still feel like they dont get enough.
ridiculous.
slightly more back to the original topic though. he may really believe there are things in his life that need improvement. he may really believe that not being able to buy a new car every year, buy a bigger house and send his kids to private school sucks, but haji's point was why even say it? you say its to humanize the banker? why doesnt he aim for sympathy first. rather than sound like a real human by being a dick like most people, why didnt he play the puppy dog eyes focus on something people actually might care about.
On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
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.
but that wasnt the point ;D the point is normal people dont fly to africa, look for a mud hut, then try to convince the little man in the corner that their running tap water and cheap electricity isnt enough they need moaaarr. noone is that insensitive or stupid. and yet this banker, who you would assume is smarter than your average bear, proclaims to the public that he needs more money.
|
On March 02 2012 04:56 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 04:29 Treehead wrote:Let me propose another point of view here. I disagree with the OP, and though my point is somewhat different than Nony's - it's more along his line of thought. Not that it matters, but my household runs only on my salary, which is just above the national average. I am not anywhere near the top 1%. My biggest expenditures currently are food and rent, which I suspect makes me like most people. Why would a person allow themselves to go on record as saying they don't feel like they have enough with $350,000? It could be that he didn't realize $350,000 was a lot of money and that he's a moron. That's possible. It is also possible that it could be that the reporter approached him with the angle of "hey, I'm looking to try to humanize the top 1% in response to the demonizing that has been done in the past and the amount of hate that people who make large amounts of money are taking these days - could you help me with that?" So the person shared his hardships, the reporter reported them in a way which simultaneously seemed like it was accusatory to the bottom 99% and humanizing to the top 1%. The reporter gets a ton of attention, which he deserves for having come up with something so clever. That, to me, seems far more likely. Along the lines of what Nony is saying, I believe that just about anyone, regardless of salary or hardship, will adapt and come to think of their lives as having good parts and bad parts, parts they love and parts they're afraid of, things which make them happy to be alive, and things which make them wonder if they wouldn't be better off dead. Money doesn't change that. But along divergent lines - shouldn't we just accept that about people and move on? Must we consider this thought to be "man, we're very terrible beings - the extent to which we are terrible is relative" to "it's who we are. Let's stop trying to fight it and start learning to live with it in the most constructive way we can think of?" Make no mistake - I believe the system providing all this wealth is broken, and needs fixing - and I'm all for that. But along the way, is it really necessary to demonize people who are just being people? Is it really necessary to demonize at all? Can't we just identify the problem and work towards a solution without complaining along the way about how unfair life is (as though all possibilities weren't devoid of an absolute "fairness"), or becoming angsty about our nature as people? This is what we do in starcraft when we see a problem, isn't it? .... maybe most of us don't... but still, you see my point. why shouldnt we demonize them? with the rich setting the rules by which everyone lives, when a millionare sits there saying how tough things are it goes beyond 'lifes hard'. now obviously the guy in the article isnt part of the super wealthy who lobby congress, he's also not the only person talking about being 'hard done by' by the economic climate. its no secret that the american (and probably most countries) tax system is designed by and for the rich. to then complain about having it tough is kinda disgusting. these are the people who without a doubt have both the means and the knowhow to change things and they still feel like they dont get enough. ridiculous. slightly more back to the original topic though. he may really believe there are things in his life that need improvement. he may really believe that not being able to buy a new car every year, buy a bigger house and send his kids to private school sucks, but haji's point was why even say it? you say its to humanize the banker? why doesnt he aim for sympathy first. rather than sound like a real human by being a dick like most people, why didnt he play the puppy dog eyes focus on something people actually might care about. Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
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. but that wasnt the point ;D the point is normal people dont fly to africa, look for a mud hut, then try to convince the little man in the corner that their running tap water and cheap electricity isnt enough they need moaaarr. noone is that insensitive or stupid. and yet this banker, who you would assume is smarter than your average bear, proclaims to the public that he needs more money.
Does demonizing change anything except your own perceptions and what you feel comfortable with (think carefully about how it changes what you're comfortable with - is that who you want to be)?
No. So what's the point? The point is one of the following:
1. Your perceptions are the most important thing in the world.
2. You're about to do something constructive you wouldn't be comfortable with if you weren't demonizing others (think about the options here).
3. There is no point.
Ever since there was stuff to have, there were people who had more. Your attitude one way or another won't "fix" that problem - and in fact, demonizing some people over others confuses what the problem actually is. (Hint: the problem is *not* something of the form 'man the guy in this report is a jerk, we should stop letting jerks have so much money'.)
Also, how do you know what the man in the article said, what he would have wrote, or how he meant to say it? How do you know that he didn't start out with something much like what I wrote - 'I feel bad for people who have it worse than I do, but I want them to see who we are'. All you know is what the reporter wrote.
|
I think the u.s. should be renamed to the united empire of earth, and have darth vader as our president, because in all reality that isn't much ridiculous compared to the stuff that happens now a days lol, but jokes aside i am poor and good spirited and i think only the bums and the people today's society consider retards and low life's could probably run this country better than most of the people are. i would say lets have teenagers run our country but lets not get out of hand here! xD
|
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.
The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.
Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.
So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..
When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic.
|
On March 02 2012 02:21 0123456789 wrote:
6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch
Intentional? :D
dis guy. "I only earn $350k/year, it aint shit". This guys needs a reality check.
|
On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.
The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.
Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.
So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..
When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic.
Great argument if your point we should be complaining less. Terrible argument if you want to defend his whining.
For the record, I wouldn't complain at all if I was visiting a homeless shelter or an African country. It's bad taste. When 90% of your audience is poorer than you, and probably blames you to some extent for it, you shut the fuck up about your own financial problems.
BTW, I agree that it's reasonable for him to feel bad about making less than he used to. It's known that well-being isn't correlated with income after a certain point ($80,000/year in the US I think), but it's correlated with change in income. So he probably really is upset.
Also, you seem to think that anger towards any rich person must be jealousy. That's certainly not the case.
|
Osaka27139 Posts
I agree with the point that, considering the current political climate in America, it isn't a smart move for the subjects of the article to go public with their situation. The automatic reaction from people will be vitriol.
However, if you look past the dollar amount and think about percentages, their situation is no different than mine would be if I lost 20-30% of my salary. When I budget I examine what percentage of my income I can spend for housing, or vehicles, or whatever. I don't ignore my salary and go for the cheapest option. If my budget responsibilities are 75% of my paycheque and them my income dips to 70% of what it normally is then I am in trouble. My total income doesn't matter.
I don't like the fact that people who are successful are vilified and mocked when they run in to trouble. Of course as the salary goes up this idea is harder and harder to deal with because there is a saturation point where people are simply consuming for the point of consuming. But in the 6 figure range you aren't there yet imo.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 02 2012 02:50 Skuller wrote:
I think that one of the problems with finance in America is that it is much easier to make a larger percentage gain if you have a lot of money.
i.e.
If you have 100$, 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).
I agree that he still has a right to complain. The psychological stress he feels is undoubtedly real and is no less in magnitude than people who are in more dire straights. However, making his emotions public in these times is foolish.
On March 02 2012 03:28 Eiii wrote:
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.
100% agreed.
|
|
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
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 02:38 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.
On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.
The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.
Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.
So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..
When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic.
Coincidentally, I had a related discussion with a friend on Sunday, even before this article went live.
There is definitely an absolute degree to suffering. A person who is starving in Africa is in much greater suffering than the family on foodstamps in America, from an objective, absolute perspective.
But there's also an aspect of suffering that is relative and personal. In this sense, the person in Africa, the person getting foodstamps, the financially 'suffering' banker, and the college student who can't figure out what he wants to do with the next 50 years of his life all have a comparatively similar degree of personal torture and suffering of the mental kind.
Absolute suffering and relative personal suffering are both real. But they are also very different beasts.
I honestly don't mind that Mr. Schiff makes $350k a year at age 48. I know a handful of people who were making 10x that amount in their heyday. I also expect to be making around that much by the time I'm that age anyways; if I don't, then I probably have a good reason why I took a detour, so that's fine too.
His unhappiness with the situation is totally fine too. It's incredibly difficult to see the world from outside the shell that is your self. If I were in his shoes I'd likely bitch and moan too. Besides, like Mani said, his suffering is real.
But if I were in his shoes, I would not complain publicly in this current toxic atmosphere towards finance. Who knows, maybe his words were taken completely out of context. One would surely hope that the true "villain" in the situation is the Bloomberg linkbaiting reporter.
|
On March 02 2012 14:47 thedeadhaji wrote:
Coincidentally, I had a related discussion with a friend on Sunday, even before this article went live.
There is definitely an absolute degree to suffering. A person who is starving in Africa is in much greater suffering than the family on foodstamps in America, from an objective, absolute perspective.
But there's also an aspect of suffering that is relative and personal. In this sense, the person in Africa, the person getting foodstamps, the financially 'suffering' banker, and the college student who can't figure out what he wants to do with the next 50 years of his life all have a comparatively similar degree of personal torture and suffering of the mental kind.
Absolute suffering and relative personal suffering are both real. But they are also very different beasts.
I honestly don't mind that Mr. Schiff makes $350k a year at age 48. I know a handful of people who were making 10x that amount in their heyday. I also expect to be making around that much by the time I'm that age anyways; if I don't, then I probably have a good reason why I took a detour, so that's fine too.
His unhappiness with the situation is totally fine too. It's incredibly difficult to see the world from outside the shell that is your self. If I were in his shoes I'd likely bitch and moan too. Besides, like Mani said, his suffering is real.
But if I were in his shoes, I would not complain publicly in this current toxic atmosphere towards finance. Who knows, maybe his words were taken completely out of context. One would surely hope that the true "villain" in the situation is the Bloomberg linkbaiting reporter.
That's a good point about how absolute and relative suffering are both real. It reminds me of a TED talk I watched where they were saying that what society likes to consider "fake" happiness (synthesized happiness such as settling in life for what you have) is just as physically real as "true" (found) happiness (ah, just found it: Here). Just as a falsely convicted criminal can actually be happy with their time spent incarcerated, an obscenely rich man can be unhappy with his reduced bonus, and his feelings are equally valid. Although, at age 48 I wouldn't consider that obscenely rich by any account...
|
On March 02 2012 09:16 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.
The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.
Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.
So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..
When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic. Great argument if your point we should be complaining less. Terrible argument if you want to defend his whining. For the record, I wouldn't complain at all if I was visiting a homeless shelter or an African country. It's bad taste. When 90% of your audience is poorer than you, and probably blames you to some extent for it, you shut the fuck up about your own financial problems. BTW, I agree that it's reasonable for him to feel bad about making less than he used to. It's known that well-being isn't correlated with income after a certain point ($80,000/year in the US I think), but it's correlated with change in income. So he probably really is upset. Also, you seem to think that anger towards any rich person must be jealousy. That's certainly not the case.
I assume you're talking about long term well-being. That isn't related to income significantly after your basic needs are met (I think this is 20k a year, not sure but it's really low). And income changes levels temporarily but it returns to normal rather quickly.
I don't know why but reading this topic makes me appreciate living in Canada for some reason
|
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.
I have no idea why you make this assumption, or actually I do, but let's pretend I do not. It is not founded on any empirical investigations into the matter. It is founded on ideological propaganda, that the system 'works' in favor of those who are best at their fields and deserve it the most. However, research into the matter shows that the major contributing factors to wealth are completely arbitrary variables such as family, contacts and location, along with selfishness (valuing themselves over others). Note that 'work ethic', 'hard work', 'intelligence', 'expertise', 'determination' and so on are completely irrelevant in statistical terms. What were once considered honorable professions requiring unique talent acquired through years of practice are now relegated to the conveyor belts and assembly lines of countries where labor is cheapest.
No wonder you have the richest population of countries basically making huge fortunes off of the misery of other people (they have no qualms about not contributing anything to society but taking wealth that would make nations green with envy). They contribute nothing, their gains are privatized and their losses are socialized.
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.
There is nothing about suffering in-and-of itself that is relative, however f.ex. the poverty lines of countries can be considered relative for many reasons (for example, social/cultural acceptance of poverty).
If we talk for example about marxists, if they are reasonably bright and non-dogmatic, they would not deny that members of the ruling class can suffer. The psychological or emotional state is irrelevant to their views. The classes are not defined by use of the words "suffering", "privilege" or similar, which are popular to use today. They are defined through their relationship with means of production, and perhaps more explicitly whether they rent out their own labor for survival, or whether they rent other's labor for profit. It is a generalized concept of society.
|
On March 02 2012 14:47 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.
The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.
Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.
So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..
When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic. Coincidentally, I had a related discussion with a friend on Sunday, even before this article went live. There is definitely an absolute degree to suffering. A person who is starving in Africa is in much greater suffering than the family on foodstamps in America, from an objective, absolute perspective. But there's also an aspect of suffering that is relative and personal. In this sense, the person in Africa, the person getting foodstamps, the financially 'suffering' banker, and the college student who can't figure out what he wants to do with the next 50 years of his life all have a comparatively similar degree of personal torture and suffering of the mental kind. Absolute suffering and relative personal suffering are both real. But they are also very different beasts. I honestly don't mind that Mr. Schiff makes $350k a year at age 48. I know a handful of people who were making 10x that amount in their heyday. I also expect to be making around that much by the time I'm that age anyways; if I don't, then I probably have a good reason why I took a detour, so that's fine too. His unhappiness with the situation is totally fine too. It's incredibly difficult to see the world from outside the shell that is your self. If I were in his shoes I'd likely bitch and moan too. Besides, like Mani said, his suffering is real. But if I were in his shoes, I would not complain publicly in this current toxic atmosphere towards finance. Who knows, maybe his words were taken completely out of context. One would surely hope that the true "villain" in the situation is the Bloomberg linkbaiting reporter.
In social science, we both count relativ poverty and absolute poverty.
Absolute poverty is when you can't pay a certain bag of necessary goods and relativ poverty is when you have a certain % of the median salary (50% or 60% most of the time). Well there are a lot of other way of doing it (like for exemple privation poverty, which is based around the idea that you are poor as soon as you cannot pay yourself a certain good that is considered as a necessity in the world you live in).
Considering all those definition, one can say that a guy who have internet can still be a poor in an occidental society considering relativ poverty or privation poverty's definitions. But, Mr. Schiff will always be a rich, no matter what kind of definition you take. That is the difference. When one say "relativ suffering", nobody is referring to the fact that suffering is subjectiv, but that your own suffering is in relation to others : it's about your own position in regard to the people surrounding you, in your own society, how much respect you get from them, etc.
Mr. Schiff can be sad all he wants about not having the car he wants or whatever, that doesn't mean his suffering are at the same level of a guys who is crying on the internet because if suffering are relative, his suffering are still the suffering of the top 1%.
|
I honestly don't mind that Mr. Schiff makes $350k a year at age 48. I know a handful of people who were making 10x that amount in their heyday. I also expect to be making around that much by the time I'm that age anyways; if I don't, then I probably have a good reason why I took a detour, so that's fine too.
I mind it - income inequality, that is. It bothers me that some people can't afford to eat while others don't bat an eye on spending thousands on clothing that lacks the same kind of absolute value to the world that a human life has. It bothers me that it doesn't bother more people. However, I don't think the rich are to blame for the system being like it is. Systems have flaws. It's our job as a society to redesign them when they go bad. We're not really doing that, though, so we can't complain that someone is doing something both legal and understandable with money that society has allowed him to accumulate. That's ridiculous.
There is definitely an absolute degree to suffering. A person who is starving in Africa is in much greater suffering than the family on foodstamps in America, from an objective, absolute perspective.
But there's also an aspect of suffering that is relative and personal. In this sense, the person in Africa, the person getting foodstamps, the financially 'suffering' banker, and the college student who can't figure out what he wants to do with the next 50 years of his life all have a comparatively similar degree of personal torture and suffering of the mental kind.
Absolute suffering and relative personal suffering are both real. But they are also very different beasts.
I love this point of view. It feels like a philosophical cop-out to say that all suffering is relative because there's no real way of measuring which form of suffering *should* be worse, but we feel like we ought to just know that being on food stamps is worse than losing part of your bonus. I think most of the people claiming this point of view, though, were really just doing so to give those who lost their heads over this a much needed reality check.
if I were in his shoes, I would not complain publicly in this current toxic atmosphere towards finance. Who knows, maybe his words were taken completely out of context. One would surely hope that the true "villain" in the situation is the Bloomberg linkbaiting reporter.
Its also possible that there is no villain. Articles like these that cause us to challenge how competently others are leading our lives should first cause us to ask the question "how well do I really know this person?" Text is great for delivering quick meaning, but less good for delivering deep meaning in a concise format. Remember the first time that girl you were seeing told you she loved you in person? Now - do you also remember the first time a girl texted you "I <3 you"? Without the auditory and facial queues, deep meaning tends to be lost in the written word. We should therefore assume when reading an article with this kind of personal appeal that we really don't know anyone involved well enough to know what they meant and pass judgement. We can speculate (which you admit you're doing, so this isn't really intended to call you out), but we have to kind of assume that why and how such an article got published is beyond us... unless of course, there becomes more text for us to find patterns in to draw conclusions from.
|
On March 02 2012 13:50 Manifesto7 wrote:
I agree with the point that, considering the current political climate in America, it isn't a smart move for the subjects of the article to go public with their situation. The automatic reaction from people will be vitriol.
However, if you look past the dollar amount and think about percentages, their situation is no different than mine would be if I lost 20-30% of my salary. When I budget I examine what percentage of my income I can spend for housing, or vehicles, or whatever. I don't ignore my salary and go for the cheapest option. If my budget responsibilities are 75% of my paycheque and them my income dips to 70% of what it normally is then I am in trouble. My total income doesn't matter.
I don't like the fact that people who are successful are vilified and mocked when they run in to trouble. Of course as the salary goes up this idea is harder and harder to deal with because there is a saturation point where people are simply consuming for the point of consuming. But in the 6 figure range you aren't there yet imo.
I think this is an excellent post, and has changed my viewpoint on the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
