|
On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
|
On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary.
That is what TS has stated
|
The complacent public really is the driving point imo. Before the US was all about going all out to be No.1 We had good education and incentives for getting there and people were motivated toward a goal. After we achieved the high status of the solo superpower after the cold war we basically said "ok lets just sit back and enjoy this shit" and we have been in decline ever since. Now other countries are catching up, and they are educating their people better and better (either by coming here to finish advanced studies or building their own) they are motivated to improving and we aren't. It will take some big pitfall or something that really starts to affect the public on a large scale to motivate them to start change again towards the positive. Personally I don't care what position the US is on "the global dick scale" for economy/power. If China/India/whoever takes over that top spot then good for them. It might be good imo if we contract our influence IE having military bases fucking EVERYWHERE around the globe and stop trying to control/meddle with other countries.
|
On December 06 2010 12:34 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King.
And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis.
Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
|
China has a population of what, 1.5 billion people? Just imagine if China were able to fully tap that buying power. As soon as the Chinese government finds a way to bring the rest of the country up to speed and get people to start buying domestic products, the country will shoot to the top of economic food chain.
|
On December 06 2010 12:44 Hatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:34 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane. My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much.
It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
|
On December 06 2010 12:34 SamuraiJJ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. That is what TS has stated
It's quite easy actually. Just have a dad that have a 9 figure salary 
|
It's totally wrong to to correlate the West's complacency to "liberty" or democracy. China is going through that period of economic growth boom that other countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan went through during the last 2 decade. The biggest difference is that China is just so massive in terms of population and country size, so the effects are just so much more significant.
|
On December 06 2010 12:13 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 11:48 InsideTheBox wrote:On December 06 2010 11:30 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 11:09 happyness wrote:On December 06 2010 10:44 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote:
Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum. Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector? When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse. Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually. About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work. But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force. One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen. The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress. Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive. Projecting much? Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious. Yes. I made it explicit that I am partially projecting my own motivations. Government spending numbers are concrete enough. I can provide a few more if you are interested. As my talk of a complacent public, I don't know what evidence there is beyond broad observations. That the service sector is stealing away talent other industries is fairly well-known. The fact that financial institutions are either incompetent or corrupt is fairly accepted as well. Goldman Sachs sold junk mortgage-backed securities rated as AAA, while also purchasing an absurd amount of credit-default swaps against the very product they were peddling. This was a clever maneuver that made them a good deal of money, but this is money won on successful gambling at the expense of others who bet poorly. This sort of money made is zero-sum and not productive - thus I consider it to be an inefficient sector contributing to the growth of the economy. Any other objections? (yeah yeah passive-aggressive i know*)
So your argument for an inefficient service sector is this one example which happens to be in everyone's mind?
GS along with many other major IBs packaged RMBS (along with dozens of other types of asset backed securities) during this time period. The creation of this product was deemed (and will prove to be in the future) an excellent feat of financial engineering. IBs often act counterparty to bets made against (CDS) the products they originate (re; hedging et al). In addition to all this they made a killing doing so, ergo not an example of incompetency.
|
On December 06 2010 12:57 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:44 Hatsu wrote:On December 06 2010 12:34 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane. My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much. It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund.
IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
|
On December 06 2010 12:32 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom.
Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income.
Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
|
On December 06 2010 12:34 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane.
However, IBs should expect 80 hour+ work weeks with very little time off. So if you look at it in terms of hourly pay, you should divide that number by two.
|
I don't understand what you guys mean by americans being "lazy and complacent". Care to elaborate? I don't have a first hand experience with the US. So I could be wrong. But I read a lot of different tech news and blogs from everywhere and consequently even end up reading a few business blogs here and there. And the impression that I get is the exact opposite. Americans seem like the most aggressive, reckless, inventive and forward-thinking entrepreneurs in the whole world. And most importantly, the most active and intense market. More so than China even.
So I cannot see what is this talk about a "complacent public". I would love to hear more. Personally, I would put more blame of the american "crisis" into what the OP numbered as 1 and 2, which are basically consequences of number 3 (corrupt and short-sighted congress). Or am I missing something obvious?
|
On December 06 2010 13:16 InsideTheBox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:13 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 11:48 InsideTheBox wrote:On December 06 2010 11:30 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 11:09 happyness wrote:On December 06 2010 10:44 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 10:29 happyness wrote:
Disagree w/OP. You, along with many others, really don't understand economics. Just because China will eventually surpass the US eventually in no way shape or form means the US is going to "fall". Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because one economy rises doesn't mean another has to fall. On the contrary, when one economy does well other economies it interacts with also do well. It's in China's best interest to have the U.S. continue to do well economically.
Take the U.K. for example. 100 years ago it was the worlds leading power and now America is ahead of it by a long shot. But I think England is doing just fine. It's not like they are living in poverty.
China has 5 times as many people as the U.S. 5 times. If anything they should already be ahead of us, with that many people. We should all be happy that China is growing because that only means that literally millions of people will be pulled out of poverty I understand economics perfectly well. Well enough to say that during a global recession, economics is worse than zero-sum - it is negative sum. Of course it is in China's best interest for America to do well. Technically it is in everyone's best interest for everyone else to do well. The real issue is that China is less dependent on America than vice-versa. Why is it that China is among the least affected by the failure of America's financial sector? When I allude to the Fall of America I'm speaking in relative terms - I'm not speaking about it's collapse. Ok. From the OP it sounded like you were saying America is screwed because China's rising.
I am in agreement that China's rise is a good thing. No human being deserves the burden of poverty. China is not a threat, nor should it be viewed as a threat. If anything, it's a nation governed by certain sensibilities American should learn from.
China has risen because of adapting U.S. sensibilities (i.e. free market). As I said, China has so many more people than the U.S. they should surpass the U.S. eventually. About the original question, the U.S. for the most part shouldn't follow china's way of doing things. It may be true that we have a lazy and complacent public. But I think that is often exaggerated. Americans still work more than many other industrialized nations and do effective work. But my question to you is: what exactly are you suggesting should be done about this? Should the government get involved, like the chinese govt does with their people? Because I would definately say no to that. I believe that to change a nation culturally it has to come from the individuals and not through government force. One thing I feel the U.S. should adapt from china though is their lack of debt. The financial crisis was caused by an inflated market due to creditors and such. Again it has to be a cultural change that I'm sure will happen. At the very least the U.S. govt should get rid of the national debt, but I don't think thats going to happen. The direct method is through government subsidies. But the two-party system is a mess. I expect nothing from Congress. Americans need to learn how to be industrious again. College graduates need to feel compelled toward productive careers, but they find themselves without adequate incentive. Projecting much? Your first post cites nothing concrete in terms of argument; you throw out vague phrases like "inefficient service sector" and "complacent public" with the hopes of drawing in some sort of debate. I'd usually call troll, but for some reason I think you are attempting to be serious. Yes. I made it explicit that I am partially projecting my own motivations. Government spending numbers are concrete enough. I can provide a few more if you are interested. As my talk of a complacent public, I don't know what evidence there is beyond broad observations. That the service sector is stealing away talent other industries is fairly well-known. The fact that financial institutions are either incompetent or corrupt is fairly accepted as well. Goldman Sachs sold junk mortgage-backed securities rated as AAA, while also purchasing an absurd amount of credit-default swaps against the very product they were peddling. This was a clever maneuver that made them a good deal of money, but this is money won on successful gambling at the expense of others who bet poorly. This sort of money made is zero-sum and not productive - thus I consider it to be an inefficient sector contributing to the growth of the economy. Any other objections? (yeah yeah passive-aggressive i know*) So your argument for an inefficient service sector is this one example which happens to be in everyone's mind? GS along with many other major IBs packaged RMBS (along with dozens of other types of asset backed securities) during this time period. The creation of this product was deemed (and will prove to be in the future) an excellent feat of financial engineering. IBs often act counterparty to bets made against (CDS) the products they originate (re; hedging et al). In addition to all this they made a killing doing so, ergo not an example of incompetency.
Yes. I choose this example precisely because it is so well-known. Are you intending to argue that such a practice creates real wealth? If not, I don't see why you have issue with my describing it as inefficient.
As far as competency goes, yes GS is competent. Other banks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers were not competent.
|
On December 06 2010 13:20 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:32 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom. Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income. Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution.
Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part.
Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education.
You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"?
In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
|
China's pumping drones HARD -- the USA on the other hand, is investing way too much in its defense and army.
Hmm this is all interesting, but yea it is a little funny how some people I've seen internet-wise are scared of this, I mean c'mon wayy back then China was huge (when the west and east were still separate and maybe barely when America was colonial), but as they were quite rich/advanced, they got lazy relative to the rest of the world. That and how they kept fighting amongst themselves (well I guess it's to be expected considering how big China was and how hard it was to communicate). But on the other side of the world the Americans were united, eventually rebelling against Britain and growing into the mega country it is today. Oh and of course also the imperialistic era before today where they sent troops to China.
So it's sort of like history repeating itself; now China is working hard, while the many people in the US think they're the best and will/should be the best forever, without having to work hard individually. And because of this China will probably rise above the US. But hey, can't complain can you? It's not like there's a law that Americans have to be the richest ever xD. And like others said, just because China rises doesn't mean America will get poorer. Good example I saw was UK back in the day when it was like the strongest nation, compared to now where the US is much richer than the UK but the UK is still fairly rich.
Anyways I always think such changes make life interesting, gives you something to look forward to. Oh and also gives something for TL'ers and Starcraft fans to discuss :D
Haha sometimes I wish Japan, Korea, and China (Taiwan too may be, although not my priority) were all one country, that way I could just focus on that one country's language for Anime/VideoGames, eSports/Starcraft, and... um well, Chinese-related stuff xD.
|
On December 06 2010 13:19 InsideTheBox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 12:57 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 12:44 Hatsu wrote:On December 06 2010 12:34 Consolidate wrote:On December 06 2010 12:26 keynest wrote:On December 06 2010 12:20 SamuraiJJ wrote:
six figure for a starting salary in China definitely requires much more than what you have thought.
Six figure for a starting salary? What kind of career is that? I don't think even in the US you can find handful of positions that have six figures for a starting salary. A junior analyst at a bulge-bracket IB makes around 60k-100k salary + equivalent bonus. Bonuses in IB are insane. My old flatmate worked in the position you described for a major IB here in London. His salary was indeed very high, but his hourly wage was lower than when he worked in Burger King. And that was before they cut his bonus due to the crisis. Also, IB bankers have one of the highest suicide rates in the population. There is a reason why they pay that much. It's a pretty shitty job, to be honest. But it is one of the only sure-fire ways to get rich. Most people only work two years at an IB before moving to a consulting firm or a hedge-fund. IB exit ops are PE or VC, it's usually S&T that goes on to work at HFs
Could you please decipher these terms? I've tried googling them but am still not sure.
|
On December 06 2010 13:26 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 13:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 12:32 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom. Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income. Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution. Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part. Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education. You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer"
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
|
For what i have seen, the chinese are used to have strong a ruler, one of the main differences with the US. A very powerfull chinese group/person can proclaim itself king and there would be no MAJOR unrest. Try proclaiming yourself king of America and tell me how it goes.
I hate considering predictions as a fact, but considering that whenever a new world power rises there is a big war, it would not surprise me some asshole country bombing the fuck out of somewhere.
ON the international affaires subject i would like to point out that the Germans have been doing some really good silent job on owning europe and sharing it with the russians. And they are not that silent anymore. You should really check Merkel's latest statements.
|
On December 06 2010 13:37 gfever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 13:26 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 13:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 12:32 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
We saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. China is the perfect mix of freedom and authoritarianism. Enough freedom to make people happy(or think they're happy), and enough authoritarianism to make sure everyone stays in line. And the wealthier china gets, the happier the majority of its citizens will be. The only real way china is going to see any serious reform is complete economic devastation, where the progress that the communist party touts around as a measure of the success of the party is no longer a viable option in assuaging peoples concerns with their lack of freedom. Compared to most western countries and the gulf between the rich and the poor is huge. The only way for the gap to shrink is the natural progression into a white collar middle class. Which is what China is currently investing in by increasing funding for education enormously. In 20 years when that investment bears fruit we'll be looking at a very different distribution of income. Then that middle class will start asking "We made this country what it is today, why don't we get a say in how it is run?". And at that point there has to be a social revolution. Like I said, we saw how China handled that with Tienanmen Square. If you ask any chinese students studying in the states about chinas authoritarianism, the majority of them basically give you a response of "it works, why complain" or "I'm happy, why change". They are 100% aware of its lack of freedom in comparison to the united states, they just don't care for the most part. Countries like japan, korea, and china have cultures that emphasize fitting in as well. It's not a normal thought process to just rebel for most of them, regardless of education. You know how we have the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? In china, they have a saying that goes "the raised nail gets the hammer" That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign.
Umm, there is a difference between being critical of the government versus being against the government. I hope you understand that difference and realize that there are individuals that curse their fates for being born into X country for Y government everywhere.
On the contrary, most Chinese people (actually all) I know support the government despite being critical about some aspects of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
304
EPT
