View Full Version : Obama's Executive Compensation Plan
I thought this article, written in question and answer format, was pretty good. Pearl seems rather knowledgeable.
Obama's pay caps: The good and bad
Executive pay expert Pearl Meyer says the limits may be politically popular, but aren't very effective at changing management thinking.
By Jennifer Reingold, senior writer
February 5, 2009: 12:26 PM ET
(Fortune) -- When it comes to executive compensation, Pearl Meyer has seen it all. She started her career more than 30 years ago, at Kraft, founding her own eponymous firm in 1989 and later selling it. Now senior managing director at Steven Hall & Partners, Meyer has the kind of perspective on President Obama's pay restrictions that can only come from a veteran of the business. In an interview with Fortune's Jennifer Reingold, she talked about what's good and bad in it.
Q: Pearl, what do you make of the Obama plan? Will it change the way banks pay their executives?
A: I think it's clever. It's well designed from the perspective of the government trying to balance incentives with the need to satisfy the concerns of the public and the Congress. What they are trying to do, I believe -- how should I put this delicately -- is to meet the expectations of the public. But I don't know how effective it will be in motivating and retaining the people we need for the long haul.
It sounds very good if you believe that the people who are now in charge were responsible for the disaster. But these disasters were caused by a small segment of the managing population and the problem is proper oversight by senior management, most of which are gone. Now there is a cadre of executives who are going to be punished or penalized for the actions of others. I am concerned that these institutions won't be able to maintain the quality of their hires.
Q. But what else would they do? Go to other companies that didn't take TARP funding?
A. Exactly, yes. Right now AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) is hemorrhaging people and they are being grabbed up right and left.
Q: Are there specific elements of the plan that you like or don't like?
A: Some of these things are very sensible, like don't redecorate your office. On the other hand, the nonsense about Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) not being able to have a sales meeting is terrible. It's business. They're going to have to have sales conferences and people are going to have to pay for them.
If you really look at it, though, they didn't really limit executive pay. They limited current cash compensation to $500,000. Continuing to grant restricted stock and other long-term incentives represents an opportunity for long-term wealth accumulation, considering the depressed value of the stock. AIG is now at around $1 a share...if people could get restricted stock at a dollar and bring that company back, they could easily make up for what they've lost in cash.
Q: This is not the first time government has tried to limit compensation. What has been the result in other attempts?
A: Ideologically I think that if it was not a quid pro quo [meaning, that this is in return for government funding], it would be a very bad idea. Every time we've had regulatory interference with the marketplace, it has boomeranged. I've gone all the way back to Nixon's wage controls. It was a complete failure. There was a limitation of 4% on all salary increases, but before that many companies weren't giving 4%. After that they all were. And the year after the controls expired, salaries increased 10%.
The same thing happened with the $1 million cap on the tax deductibility on executive salaries. And the limit of 2.99 times salary for the tax deductibility of golden parachutes [severance or change-in-control payments made to executives]. No one was getting that before: The average was 1.5 times. People were coming to me saying, "Mrs. Meyer, why am I only getting 1.5 when the government lets you do 2.99?" It just boomerangs
It does raise an a few interesting questions. The big one would be: Will these high level executives abandon the TARP firms to receive more money?
Hosakawa Tito
02-06-2009, 00:45
There is a glut of unemployed bankers & finance industry workers out there. What happens to wages for labor when there's more workers than jobs? Wages go down or at best stagnate, right? Why should it be any different for highly paid executives? The government should make the companies that already received billions of tax-payer money give back the bonuses they paid out, 18+ billion worth. It's really pulls at your heart strings~:rolleyes: that some feel they can't get by on $500,000 per year plus stock options. The compensation culture has to change from high risk short term profit, gimme my $50 million I'm outta here before it goes bust; to more long term viability/profitability. Share holders need a meaningful voting say on management compensation & perks, that counts, not the jury-rigged in favor of the board & top echelon that is in place now. It's one thing when you're spending & risking your own money, and quite another when you're spending & risking other peoples money.
HoreTore
02-06-2009, 02:38
I think I'm going to have a boner for the rest of the year!:smash:
Lucky I have a date tomorrow night....
Strike For The South
02-06-2009, 02:40
I think I'm going to have a boner for the rest of the year!:smash:
Lucky I have a date tomorrow night....
Make sure he's gentle ~;)
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-06-2009, 06:28
It's one thing when you're spending & risking your own money, and quite another when you're spending & risking other peoples money.
Apply this to both business and government and I'm on board.
HoreTore
02-06-2009, 07:19
Make sure he's gentle ~;)
You should remember from our last......"encounter" that I like it rough ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2009, 08:48
The government shouldn't interfere in such things. It will only backlash.
Yes, its a populist move that will make some happy. But guess what - the top talent will leave all the firms that are forced to accept these conditions and the economy will suffer.
CR
HoreTore
02-06-2009, 08:58
The government shouldn't interfere in such things. It will only backlash.
Yes, its a populist move that will make some happy. But guess what - the top talent will leave all the firms that are forced to accept these conditions and the economy will suffer.
CR
That "talent" is responsible for the biggest economic crisis since the 30's. Please, do explain why it's a bad thing for them to bugger off....
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2009, 09:19
Because it's not the whole class of people responsible, just a few. Most of those people affected by this are not responsible. It's cutting your nose to spite your face.
CR
HoreTore
02-06-2009, 09:34
Because it's not the whole class of people responsible, just a few. Most of those people affected by this are not responsible. It's cutting your nose to spite your face.
CR
I sincerely doubt they will be forced to beg in the streets with a 500.000 dollar salary.
Do we have a different moral code for people at the top, btw? Responsibility and loyalty doesn't apply to them, nor do they care about it? Are the commies right when they claim that the only thing senior management cares about is personal wealth, personal wealth and some more personal wealth?
Hosakawa Tito
02-06-2009, 13:57
The government shouldn't interfere in such things. It will only backlash.
Yes, its a populist move that will make some happy. But guess what - the top talent will leave all the firms that are forced to accept these conditions and the economy will suffer.
CR
But the government has already "interfered" by making the tax-payers shareholders in these failing companies. If they're "top talent" why is their company failing and looking for a handout of tax-payer money?
Because it's not the whole class of people responsible, just a few. Most of those people affected by this are not responsible.
Hogwash. The entire culture of corporate officer compensation must be changed and this will happen at healthy institutions also. There's no justification for the lavish waste of shareholder's money on $35,000 commodes and $17,000 waste baskets ala John Thain (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/01/23/deal-journal-explainer-the-35000-commode-outrage/) . This isn't an isolated case, it's common practice. Every corporate board member for these troubled companies should be fired and blackballed from ever serving as such again.
Well, isn't it a nice display of how a country is free, offers free choice and a chance for everyone to rise to the top when "top-talents" prefer to be unemployed and others can get to try their job?
It's like with presidents, even if they're good, you wouldn't want them to serve more than 8 years, maybe a similar rule should be made for managers? After those 8 years they could retire and hold speeches for 50000$ each, like some politicians do.
KukriKhan
02-06-2009, 14:54
I just wish the poli's would cap their own salaries and perq's. Spread the suffering around, yanno?
In my town, the City workers took a 5% pay cut across-the-board, rather than have forced layoffs (which may come anyway, later this year, if/when things get worse).
City Council, otoh, got a 9% pay raise, that none have declined/refused.
I just wish the poli's would cap their own salaries and perq's. Spread the suffering around, yanno?
There have been a few minor nods (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_executive_pay) toward this.
Hosakawa Tito
02-06-2009, 16:20
I just wish the poli's would cap their own salaries and perq's. Spread the suffering around, yanno?
In my town, the City workers took a 5% pay cut across-the-board, rather than have forced layoffs (which may come anyway, later this year, if/when things get worse).
City Council, otoh, got a 9% pay raise, that none have declined/refused.
I agree, but don't get me started on my New York State Banana Republic representatives or I'll forget my org manners, get banned from the Backroom, and receive a courtesy call from the men in black.... I mean we have to give them such compensation to retain their awesome brilliance or the people of New York will suffer from mediocre leadership...*the sarcasm meter is redlining cap'n, anymore o' this and she's goona blow*
LittleGrizzly
02-06-2009, 16:25
This is rubbish!
We need to give these people more not less money, with this extra increase in wages and bonuses we shall attract all the top talent and they will save us from this economic trouble!
Double all CEO's, Board members and top level management's pay!
What really needs doing is a rewrite of how corporate officer compensation boards work. More input from shareholders, and more focus on bonuses for long-term success. For all companies, not just the ones taking a bailout. Then, with the federal government as a large shareholder of the failing companies, these limitations can be applied as part of the new process. This would also give large retirement plans and mutual funds a better say in how their investments are to be squandered.
Shareholders really need to be more involved in the process, and people should not invest in companies that allow the board to raid the profits.
Vladimir
02-06-2009, 17:58
I just wish the poli's would cap their own salaries and perq's. Spread the suffering around, yanno?
In my town, the City workers took a 5% pay cut across-the-board, rather than have forced layoffs (which may come anyway, later this year, if/when things get worse).
City Council, otoh, got a 9% pay raise, that none have declined/refused.
Good call! This always burns me. Especially in this case when congress recently voted themselves a pay increase.
More input from shareholders, and more focus on bonuses for long-term success.
We have a winner!
Don Corleone
02-06-2009, 21:07
You're free to pay your executives whatever you want to with your own money. Shareholders and banks (the 2 normal sources of capital) place restrictions on executive pay, why shouldn't the government when they take up the role of investor.
Besides, rewarding somebody for gross incompetence really rubs me the wrong way. If Citibank feels so morally outraged that the White House would dare to suggest that they're overpaid, don't take their money!
We have a winner!
Yes, because we all know from the gaming industry how shareholders always have the best interests of the company's customers in mind and no company would ever try to screw it's customers or employees to appease the shareholders. :dizzy2:
So if shareholders and banks are the only sources of capital nowadays anyway, then why are people supposed to buy all the stuff companies produce anyway if I may ask into the round? :inquisitive:
Besides, rewarding somebody for gross incompetence really rubs me the wrong way. If Citibank feels so morally outraged that the White House would dare to suggest that they're overpaid, don't take their money!
From the Article:
It sounds very good if you believe that the people who are now in charge were responsible for the disaster. But these disasters were caused by a small segment of the managing population and the problem is proper oversight by senior management, most of which are gone. Now there is a cadre of executives who are going to be punished or penalized for the actions of others. I am concerned that these institutions won't be able to maintain the quality of their hires.
I'd have no problem if the pay restrictions were on the idiots who caused this. Unfortunately, it's not really that simple.
So if shareholders and banks are the only sources of capital nowadays anyway, then why are people supposed to buy all the stuff companies produce anyway if I may ask into the round? :inquisitive:
You are confusing financing and profit. People are suppose to buy the products because they need the products. Companies are suppose to sell the products to pay their debt and/or make profit.
Now the sources of financing, are shareholders, banks, or corporate paper (like treasury bonds, except issued by corporations).
Don Corleone
02-06-2009, 23:37
From the Article:
I'd have no problem if the pay restrictions were on the idiots who caused this. Unfortunately, it's not really that simple.
It's not simply a matter of punishment on those responsible. It's a matter of "do you really need a government bailout or don't you"? If your CEO is raking in $10million, maybe the answer is no.
Seriously, let's consider the worst case scenario proposed by Ms. Meyer. The position and tone of her arguments seem to indicate that she believes maintaining the maximum number of corporate entities is a goal, in and of itself. But should it be?
Let's say AIG takes the TARP money, and in doing so, restricts executive pay. And as a result, the wall-street regulars all bail off of AIG's senior management team. What happens next? They have to go to the minor leagues. Since it was conventional wisdom and business-as-usual that caused the current mess, wouldn't fresh blood likely be a good thing?
And there's another syllogism in her article. She highlights that AIG is hemorraghing talent right now. But the executive restrictions haven't gone into affect yet. So these guys are paying themselves gobs of taxpayer cash, and leaving anyways.
Finally, I conclude that even if the worst were to happen, and some troubled instutions weren't able to retain top talent and ended up going under... is that so terrible? It's not as though the talent is just going to stop working... they'll be adopted into higher-paying (therefore, non-TARP limited, therefore, not in fiscal crisis) competitors.
This, by the way is reason #2 I believe the only thing the government ever should have done was buy troubled assets directly. Had they stuck to that approach, even if AIG went under, the government still had the assets they purchsed. By handing a bag of money to a thief and hoping this time he doesn't pocket it... well, you can see how well it's working out.
Major Robert Dump
02-07-2009, 00:08
It doesn't matter if the specific individuals being capped were responsible or not, what matters is that they are part of a company that is being bailed out at the taxpayers expense.
I understand this is a form of socialism, I understand it violates some of the basics of free market capitalism -- but how does saving failing companies and nationalizing banks not do the same thing? How does giving auto companies who can't manage their business and peddle subpar goods a handout not qualify as socialism when it essentially stifles competition from the other car companies who play on the same field as the Big3? How does a state paying for a large companies parking and plumbing in order to lure them to the state not qualify as socialism when 99.9% of that companies competitors recieved no such assistance
My point is that's its absolutely ridiculous that we this perverted system masquerading as capitalism yet critics of this salary cap cry about interfering in the market. Hell, McCain ran an entire campaign about Obama turning us socialist as billions of dollars were being poured into banks and billions more were being promised to car companies. Give me a break.
Using the logic of not capping salaries for these companies on bailout funds, well, poor people on welfare shouldn't have a limit in benefits and in fact should get a raise every year. I mean really, it is the same thing in theory and procedure. I'm curious how many people against the salary caps are for more lax qualifications for social welfare, and how many people against drug and alcohol testing of welfare recipients are for the salary caps.
As for caps for people in office I think the only people not for that are the people in office. Still, there's a difference between the pols salaries and the exec caps because pols were elected or appointed, and stupid spending on retreats and big dinners and high salaries are kind of expected because they are slimy politicians after all.
You are confusing financing and profit. People are suppose to buy the products because they need the products. Companies are suppose to sell the products to pay their debt and/or make profit.
Now the sources of financing, are shareholders, banks, or corporate paper (like treasury bonds, except issued by corporations).
Well, if they'd skip one cycle of financing, they could use all that profit for financing and wouldn't have to pay any interests. That way they would have more money for financing, unless you are saying that they only use the profits to pay the interest on their loans while taking up ever more loans in which case it's no wonder the industry is in big trouble if you ask me. :dizzy2:
Askthepizzaguy
02-07-2009, 11:09
I just wish the poli's would cap their own salaries and perq's. Spread the suffering around, yanno?
In my town, the City workers took a 5% pay cut across-the-board, rather than have forced layoffs (which may come anyway, later this year, if/when things get worse).
City Council, otoh, got a 9% pay raise, that none have declined/refused.
Personally, I believe the entire Congress should serve without accepting a single dime as a salary until the budget is balanced and the national debt is paid off. That goes for the president and the cabinet too.
I volunteer to serve for free, and you know where I stand. The only thing is, I refuse to ask for donations, advertise, or campaign. I will only debate.
I'm non-partisan and I'd prefer that my personal life stay that way. As such, I won't be running. :laugh2:
LittleGrizzly
02-07-2009, 14:48
Well, if they'd skip one cycle of financing, they could use all that profit for financing and wouldn't have to pay any interests. That way they would have more money for financing, unless you are saying that they only use the profits to pay the interest on their loans while taking up ever more loans in which case it's no wonder the industry is in big trouble if you ask me.
I don't think it's quite that simple, alot of business need constant finance to reinvest in thier business and the major problem with a recession is not only will thier sources of finance dry up but other companies will extend thier 'debtor days' meaning they take longer to pay the other company (for stock or whatever they buy) generally larger companies will do this to smaller companies as they can get away with it, meaning little company in example will need finance to make up the temorary short fall, this constant finance and reinvestment as long as it is done well will cause the company to grow...
I don't think it's quite that simple, alot of business need constant finance to reinvest in thier business and the major problem with a recession is not only will thier sources of finance dry up but other companies will extend thier 'debtor days' meaning they take longer to pay the other company (for stock or whatever they buy) generally larger companies will do this to smaller companies as they can get away with it, meaning little company in example will need finance to make up the temorary short fall, this constant finance and reinvestment as long as it is done well will cause the company to grow...
Yes, I'm aware it's more complicated, we have managed to make a matter of plus and minus so complicated that we can discuss the whole thing for hours until everybody is confused, everybody thinks she/he is right and companies go bankrupt anyway. It really works, doesn't it?
LittleGrizzly
02-07-2009, 16:38
It really works, doesn't it?
Well it has its problems but generally...yes. For a really simple example imagine a game of command and conquer, if someone gave you a loan of 10,000 ore (ontop of your startup capital) you can expand and make more money far more quickly than an opposing player who doesn't have a loan. Of course in real life businesses can be unsuccessful even with expansion and finance, but mostly they expand and make more money and are able to pay back thier debts...
With the bankrupt companies it was more down to bad managment and other problems with companies rather than the system (though you could accuse the 'system' of having these flaws as inevitably built in) some companies struggled because of the recession rather than thier own bad practice, these are companies we should support as they are profitable and will return to this status once we get through the recession...
I'm not as much against the system itself as I am against the people using it, the system itself is just so complicated nowadays that everytime there is a crisis you get about ten different opinions on how to get out of it which tells me that around 9 people don't really know how the system works and quite honestly I can usually not say who that is... :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
what I can tell however is that the system rewards people who do everything to make money and that alone tells me that people at the top of the system are very likely to lie for their own benefit and cannot be trusted, it's the nature of the system so I'm against them per default because it's the logical thing to do for my own benefit, or something... :dizzy2:
It's not simply a matter of punishment on those responsible. It's a matter of "do you really need a government bailout or don't you"? If your CEO is raking in $10million, maybe the answer is no.
Perhaps, although 10 million is fairly small peanuts compared to the billions we are giving these firms.
Seriously, let's consider the worst case scenario proposed by Ms. Meyer. The position and tone of her arguments seem to indicate that she believes maintaining the maximum number of corporate entities is a goal, in and of itself. But should it be?
If not, what was the point of spending how hundreds of billions of dollars bailing them out?
Let's say AIG takes the TARP money, and in doing so, restricts executive pay. And as a result, the wall-street regulars all bail off of AIG's senior management team. What happens next? They have to go to the minor leagues. Since it was conventional wisdom and business-as-usual that caused the current mess, wouldn't fresh blood likely be a good thing?
Fresh Blood? Sure. Lower Talent Fresh Blood? No.
And there's another syllogism in her article. She highlights that AIG is hemorraghing talent right now. But the executive restrictions haven't gone into affect yet. So these guys are paying themselves gobs of taxpayer cash, and leaving anyways.
It could be due the fact that they expect a pay cut and are leaving before such a thing is enforced. I really don't know why though.
Finally, I conclude that even if the worst were to happen, and some troubled instutions weren't able to retain top talent and ended up going under... is that so terrible? It's not as though the talent is just going to stop working... they'll be adopted into higher-paying (therefore, non-TARP limited, therefore, not in fiscal crisis) competitors.
Like I said before, what was the point of bailing these companies out if we are just going to let them fall to the "minor leagues"? It really doesn't make sense.
This, by the way is reason #2 I believe the only thing the government ever should have done was buy troubled assets directly. Had they stuck to that approach, even if AIG went under, the government still had the assets they purchsed. By handing a bag of money to a thief and hoping this time he doesn't pocket it... well, you can see how well it's working out.
I'm sure Mr. Obama and our treasury secretary agree with you now. I agree with you
Well, if they'd skip one cycle of financing, they could use all that profit for financing and wouldn't have to pay any interests.
This a very conservative method. By doing this, the companies has no reserve resources to capitalize on any investment opportunity that may appear. Not to mention that the tax shield effect (you can write a certain amount of interest off of your taxes) and capitalization of interest making constant financing a good thing. However, it needs to be balanced. Too much financing can lead to bankruptcy.
That way they would have more money for financing, unless you are saying that they only use the profits to pay the interest on their loans while taking up ever more loans in which case it's no wonder the industry is in big trouble if you ask me. :dizzy2:
What? Read above as to what I meant.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-10-2009, 00:16
The New York times has some fascinating insight... (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=1&em)
PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student.
Mortgage: $96,000 a year.
Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year.
Nanny: $45,000 a year.
We are already at $269,000, and we haven’t even gotten to taxes yet.
Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.
“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable,” said Holly Peterson, the author of an Upper East Side novel of manners, “The Manny,” and the daughter of Peter G. Peterson, a founder of the equity firm the Blackstone Group. “Five hundred thousand dollars means taking their kids out of private school and selling their home in a fire sale.”
Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.
Few are playing sad cellos over the fate of such folk, especially since the collapse of the institutions they run has yielded untold financial pain. But in New York, where a new study from the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, estimates it takes $123,322 to enjoy the same middle-class life as someone earning $50,000 in Houston, extricating oneself from steep bills can be difficult.
Therefore, even if it is not for sympathy but for sport, consider the numbers.
The cold hard math can be cruel.
Like those taxes. If a person is married with two children, the weekly deductions on a $500,000 salary are: federal taxes, $2,645; Social Security, $596; Medicare, $139; state taxes, $682; and city, $372, bringing the weekly take-home to $5,180, or about $269,000 a year, said Martin Cohen, a Manhattan accountant.
Now move to living expenses.
Barbara Corcoran, a real estate executive, said that most well-to-do families take at least two vacations a year, a winter trip to the sun and a spring trip to the ski slopes.
Total minimum cost: $16,000.
A modest three-bedroom apartment, she said, which was purchased for $1.5 million, not the top of the market at all, carries a monthly mortgage of about $8,000 and a co-op maintenance fee of $8,000 a month. Total cost: $192,000. A summer house in Southampton that cost $4 million, again not the top of the market, carries annual mortgage payments of $240,000.
Many top executives have cars and drivers. A chauffeur’s pay is between $75,000 and $125,000 a year, the higher end for former police officers who can double as bodyguards, said a limousine driver who spoke anonymously because he does not want to alienate his society customers.
“Some of them want their drivers to have guns,” the driver said. “You get a cop and you have a driver.” To garage that car is about $700 a month.
A personal trainer at $80 an hour three times a week comes to about $12,000 a year.
The work in the gym pays off when one must don a formal gown for a charity gala. “Going to those parties,” said David Patrick Columbia, who is the editor of the New York Social Diary (newyorksocialdiary.com), “a woman can spend $10,000 or $15,000 on a dress. If she goes to three or four of those a year, she’s not going to wear the same dress.”
Total cost for three gowns: about $35,000.
Not every bank executive has school-age children, but for those who do, offspring can be expensive. In addition to paying tuition, “You’re not going to get through private school without tutoring a kid,” said Sandy Bass, the editor of Private School Insider, a newsletter that covers private schools in the New York City area. One hour of tutoring once a week is $125. “That’s the low end,” she said. “The higher end is 150, 175.” SAT tutors are about $250 an hour. Total cost for 30 weeks of regular tutoring: $3,750.
Two children in private school: $64,000.
Nanny: $45,000.
Ms. Bass, whose husband is an accountant with many high-end clients, said she spends about $425 every 10 days on groceries for her family. Annual cost: about $15,000.
More? Restaurants. Dry cleaning. Each Brooks Brothers suit costs about $1,000. If you run a bank, you can’t look like a slob.
The total costs here, which do not include a lot of things, like kennels for the dog when the family is away, summer camp, spas and other grooming for the human members of the family, donations to charity, and frozen hot chocolates at Serendipity, are $790,750, which would require about a $1.6-million salary to compensate for taxes. Give or take a few score thousand of dollars.
Does this money buy a chief executive stockholders might prize, a well-to-do man with a certain sureness of stride, something that might be lost if the executive were crowding onto the PATH train every morning at Journal Square, his newspaper splayed against the back of a stranger’s head?
The man would certainly not feel like himself on that train, said Candace Bushnell, the author of “Sex and the City” and other books chronicling New York social mores.
“People inherently understand that if they are going to get ahead in whatever corporate culture they are involved in, they need to take on the appurtenances of what defines that culture,” she said. “So if you are in a culture where spending a lot of money is a sign of success, it’s like the same thing that goes back to high school peer pressure. It’s about fitting in.”
By the way, the frozen hot chocolate costs $8.50.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::wall::wall::wall:
Strike For The South
02-10-2009, 00:34
Drivers? Nannies? Vacations? Private School?
I'll never understand greed.
LittleGrizzly
02-10-2009, 00:59
Drivers? Nannies? Vacations? Private School?
I'll never understand greed.
Im sure some dirt poor 3rd worlder would look at us the same way...
Major Robert Dump
02-10-2009, 01:33
HAHA good article. My mind is completely changed now.
Everytime I hear about the loss of "talent" that's going to happen I just about pee myself.
NEWSFLASH:this country is full of talent who can do just as good a job as the blokes who threaten to leave. People with Ivy League educations don't have the market cornered on brains and ability. What they do have the market cornered on is hoarding information (so others can't take their place) and creating situations in which only they have the know-how to resolve. You see it in business from billion dollar companies down to the head custodian at the courthouse -- if you don't train the people below you, you're job is secure. Awesome!
Hey, if they are so talented then they should use the talent to find a smaller house and convince the wife to get a job. Maybe get a paper route on the side. Nobody made them move to NYC. "If you can't adapt, you die,"....isn't that the crap that boss people tell the masses when they fire them to replace them with younger, fresh graduates, machines or outsourcing? When the winds of change start-a-blowin you suck it up and drive on, or GTFO. Nothing lasts forever.
Drivers? Nannies? Vacations? Private School?
I'll never understand greed.
You would if you were born into it. It's all relative.
CrossLOPER
02-10-2009, 02:12
Drivers? Nannies? Vacations? Private School?
I'll never understand greed.
Im sure some dirt poor 3rd worlder would look at us the same way...
Drivers? Depends how much you need to move about. Nannies? A good one is extremely helpful if you work. Vacations? Once a year is great. Private School? Debatable.
LittleGrizzly
02-10-2009, 02:23
You would if you were born into it. It's all relative.
This is what i was getting at, its all too easy to whine at the rich but look at us. Nice house, Car, Vacation, Computer + Internet, some would call us the greedy ones....
Edit: all this defending of rich people makes me feel dirty... they are of course the source of all our problems !! ~;)
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 02:40
Speak for yourselves. I presently have to bum internet access from relatives, am unemployed and losing what's left of my college tuition which I saved on my own scrubbing dishes for 10 hours a night for 5 years, paying all my bills and not draining society of welfare resources, not even by a penny.
I have very few personal possessions and no way to live on my own with the present job market, but I still pay all my bills and don't drain from my own family.
Everyone here is rich compared to me, unless you're a starving Ethiopian child or something.
Here's some pizza to remind me of food:
You would if you were born into it. It's all relative.
This is what i was getting at, its all too easy to whine at the rich but look at us. Nice house, Car, Vacation, Computer + Internet, some would call us the greedy ones....
Edit: all this defending of rich people makes me feel dirty... they are of course the source of all our problems !! ~;)
I couldn't agree more, Grizzly.
Speak for yourselves. I presently have to bum internet access from relatives, am unemployed and losing what's left of my college tuition which I saved on my own scrubbing dishes for 10 hours a night for 5 years, paying all my bills and not draining society of welfare resources, not even by a penny.
Why don't you collect unemployment?
LittleGrizzly
02-10-2009, 02:50
Speak for yourselves.
Well I only have the last two, but i was talking about mainly about the older guys here... I guess most of the student types (me) have it fairly good now, and the other things on the list probably ahead of them... so a majority, i don't doubt there are a few exceptions...
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 02:54
Why don't you collect unemployment?
I prefer to not steal from the taxpayers, thank you. Our budget is busted as it is. And since I have savings, I can objectively survive without it.
I don't take handouts unless the situation is life or death.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-10-2009, 03:18
I prefer to not steal from the taxpayers, thank you. Our budget is busted as it is. And since I have savings, I can objectively survive without it.
I don't take handouts unless the situation is life or death.
It's not a handout if you only collect that portion which you paid in or which was paid in by your employer as part of your compensation. Might require a bit of mathwork to get the number to which you are legitimately entitled.
What are your skills/training? How do we get you employed?
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 03:41
In my mind, the money isn't even there because we're trillions of dollars in debt.
My skills are pathetic. I've worked a lot of grunt jobs and have no formal training in anything. I'm a second year college student trying to be a teacher.
My aim is to get student loans shortly and just go full time, and repay everything and only work on weekends to cover expenses and such. If I can do this, I won't need anyone's charity.
But! Thank you for thinking of me.
Strike For The South
02-10-2009, 03:46
In my mind, the money isn't even there because we're trillions of dollars in debt.
And you support a bailout? Were already spending so much. I suggest you get on the gravy train before it passes through.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-10-2009, 03:57
In my mind, the money isn't even there because we're trillions of dollars in debt.
My skills are pathetic. I've worked a lot of grunt jobs and have no formal training in anything. I'm a second year college student trying to be a teacher.
My aim is to get student loans shortly and just go full time, and repay everything and only work on weekends to cover expenses and such. If I can do this, I won't need anyone's charity.
But! Thank you for thinking of me.
A bachelors is a virtual necessity for anyone who's not planning to go Michael Dell's route. It is a worthy starting point.
In addition to the loan game, you might consider putting your voluminous writing skills to work and pursuing, seriously, the various scholarships and grants out there. 200-500 dollar mini scholarships may not seem like much, but if you string together 12-14 of them you can put a serious dent in your scholastic bills.
Foundations, Rotarians, KofC, etc. There are lots out there, perhaps you qualify for some. Libraries should have information for you
http://www.collegeanswer.com/paying/scholarship_search/pay_scholarship_search.jsp
http://www.supercollege.com/college/college.cfm
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 04:00
And you support a bailout? Were already spending so much. I suggest you get on the gravy train before it passes through.
I understand where you're coming from, but I actually thought the Bush bailouts were a TERRIBLE idea.
Absolutely, stunningly, terrible.
The alternative to Obama's plan is a continuation of Bush tax cuts and de-regulation which got us in this mess to begin with, and SOME of what Obama is spending the money on makes sense. Given the lesser of two evils, even a small government type can agree with certain types of spending, though he wishes for a better alternative.
And I refuse to be so selfish as to add to society's woes by further taxing the system. It's a matter of pride and honour that I don't waste your tax dollars. I refuse. If I am starving to death or need an operation to save my life, I'd accept it. But not now, and not under any non-life-or-death circumstance.
I prefer to not steal from the taxpayers, thank you. Our budget is busted as it is. And since I have savings, I can objectively survive without it.
I don't take handouts unless the situation is life or death.
I don't get it. If you want to think like that, figure that you will be able to go to college with the money you could say by collecting unemployment. With that college degree, you could get a government job and provide service back to the community.
Don't starve yourself. Take the unemployment. Please. You are the kind of people who it is created for. Those who don't want it.
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 04:05
I'm honored you think so, and thanks also to Seamus for being helpful and supportive.
But I can get by on student loans, and those scholarships are better off used on people who are in worse shape than me, like young urban kids who have no family, live in the ghetto filled with crime and drugs, and need a way out. If I don't stick my hand into the cookie jar, there's cookies for other people who are starving.
Not to sound like a bleeding heart pinning himself to a cross, but... If more people had a more selfless attitude, we wouldn't be in this giant mess our country is in. Especially us "haves". As dismal a shape as I am presently in, hitting the panic button is premature. And compared to a lot of people, even I am part of the "haves" by comparison.
I was about to say, if you have enough savings to pay all your bills for several months then it's a bit premature to say you're poor, come back when you can't pay your bills anymore... ~;p
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2009, 04:29
Give me another month or two.
And I spent quite a while working for minimum wage to save up that cushion, as any responsible person should.
It's not a handout if you only collect that portion which you paid in or which was paid in by your employer as part of your compensation. Might require a bit of mathwork to get the number to which you are legitimately entitled.It may be mandatory, but it's still an insurance program. If you've been paying into the system and are entitled to get a payout, it's foolish to turn it down. It's no different from turning down medical treatment you can't afford because you consider your insurance to be freeloading. :shrug:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.