(no subject)
Apr. 24th, 2009 07:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hnpccConfessions of a Bailout Wife. Well at least she's hanging in there, unlike the ones who said "when I said for richer or poorer? I meant for richer" and left. Even so though, it certainly raises a couple of laughs when you get quotes like:
But because of a few tin-eared nitwits who failed to notice that their industry was under siege, the entire country now thinks that TARP bankers are greedy incompetents dedicated to ripping off taxpayers.
Honey? Your husband's one of those "tin-eared nitwits". Otherwise you would probably not be a "bailout wife".
Also:
We’ve picked up new habits, like making donations anonymously and sneaking in late to black-tie galas after society photographer Patrick McMullan has packed up his camera and gone home.
Diddums.
I have become oddly superstitious. On some level, I feel I’m being punished for too many thoughtless years of assuming that the trappings of success were earned and not given.
About 50:50 I'd say, skewing to either side depending on the person.
I’ve watched the skin under my husband’s eyes take on a yellowish hue, and his hair turn from gray to grayer, as he tries to lead his company through this mess. He’s up every night for hours at a stretch, and for the first time, he has health issues. For a person whose life has been punctuated mainly by success—from perennial class president and high-school sports star to Ivy League MBA—failure is the worst of all nightmares. He seems off balance, as though self-confidence were a physical ballast that he is slowly losing. It’s heartbreaking how often he apologizes to me for losing so much of our money, for making so many mistakes.
I feel for him. Failure sucks. And yet, they're probably in one of the best positions in the US to get through it. They're not talking about losing their home, being permanently unemployed, being unable to afford healthcare. They're talking about not going to the opening night at the Met, not taking the company plane, not being able to automatically assume they can send their daughter to post-graduate education. It's kind of a different scale.
Still, her reaction pales in comparision to some of those in The Rage of the Privileged Class As It Loses Its Privileges.
“No offense to Middle America, but if someone went to Columbia or Wharton, [even if] their company is a fumbling, mismanaged bank, why should they all of a sudden be paid the same as the guy down the block who delivers restaurant supplies for Sysco out of a huge, shiny truck?” e-mails an irate Citigroup executive to a colleague.
No offense, hey? Try getting a plumber in the next couple of months. Also just because your parents could afford to send you to college does not automatically make you worthier, or more deserving of a higher income than someone who drives a truck[1]. Sheesh.
“I’m not giving to charity this year!” one hedge-fund analyst shouts into the phone, when I ask about Obama’s planned tax increases. “When people ask me for money, I tell them, ‘If you want me to give you money, send a letter to my senator asking for my taxes to be lowered.’
Heh, now that's a dummy-spit I can relate to.
Bonuses were paid based largely on short-term profits. “It was the culture of what some called IBG-YBG: I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone,” says Jonathan Knee, a senior managing director at Evercore Partners. Wall Street championed the ethos of “Eat what you kill.” The most aggressive employees, those who took the greatest risks, thought of themselves less as members of a firm and more as independent contractors entitled to their share of the profits.
And... that could explain at least part of how we got here. Thanks for the ride, guys. It's been fun. Hey at least you got good money while it was going.
In a recent Atlantic article, Johnson describes Wall Street’s influence as a ruling oligarchy, not dissimilar to those of the crony capitalists that have controlled the levers of power in places like Russia, Argentina, and Indonesia. The solution, according to people like Paul Krugman, is to make banking regulated, less profitable, and “boring” again.
When the profits depend on screwing as many people as you can and then running out the door? I'm all for less profitable.
“You can’t live in New York and have kids and send them to school on $75,000,” he continues. “And you have the Obama administration suggesting that. That was a very populist thing that Obama said. He’s being disingenuous. He knows that you can’t live in New York on $75,000.”
Hahahahahaha. And again, you're joking here aren't you? Because seriously? Lots of people do. OK, they're not forking out for the top private schools in order to get their kids networked from kindergarten, but they certainly manage to live and send their kids to school in New York. Just where, exactly, do you think your cleaners come from? And while I'm at it, how much were you paying the cleaners again?
Just months ago, the masses kept what anger they had to themselves, and the bankers were close-lipped about what they thought they were owed by society. There wasn’t much of a dialogue about the haves and have-nots and who was entitled to what. For the privileged, it was a lot more comfortable when things remained unspoken. Almost more than the loss of money, they are concerned with the loss of status and pride.
Yeah, it's always a bit confronting having someone pointing out that you're being overpaid.
It's going to be interesting to see how this all sorts itself out. I doubt very much that revolution - particularly in the quite literal early communist Russian sense, where the elite were turfed onto the streets out of their 3rd floor apartments so the poor could occupy them - is likely to happen. I doubt that most of these (still) highly paid and presumably reasonably bright individuals are likely to fall too far. But how far they do fall, and how much or little the gap between the top and bottom earners in the country ends up being could be very interesting. Particularly when apparently more equal societies do better. Australia is also not great with this, despite our egalitarian founder myths.
The richest fifth in the US, Britain and Australia have respectively 8.5, 7.2 and seven times more income than the poorest fifth, or double the inequality of Japan and Scandinavian countries.
Even affluent opponents of greater equality may rethink their position after reading the very negative impact of social divisions on social health — high stress and crime levels, underfunded public services, violence and widespread fear and communal distrust.
Especially if that communal distrust comes with pitchforks.
[1] When I was writing my thesis I considered getting a truck license and driving with Post for a while (I was tired and possibly clinically insane). Those guys earn bloody good money, what with the overtime and all.
But because of a few tin-eared nitwits who failed to notice that their industry was under siege, the entire country now thinks that TARP bankers are greedy incompetents dedicated to ripping off taxpayers.
Honey? Your husband's one of those "tin-eared nitwits". Otherwise you would probably not be a "bailout wife".
Also:
We’ve picked up new habits, like making donations anonymously and sneaking in late to black-tie galas after society photographer Patrick McMullan has packed up his camera and gone home.
Diddums.
I have become oddly superstitious. On some level, I feel I’m being punished for too many thoughtless years of assuming that the trappings of success were earned and not given.
About 50:50 I'd say, skewing to either side depending on the person.
I’ve watched the skin under my husband’s eyes take on a yellowish hue, and his hair turn from gray to grayer, as he tries to lead his company through this mess. He’s up every night for hours at a stretch, and for the first time, he has health issues. For a person whose life has been punctuated mainly by success—from perennial class president and high-school sports star to Ivy League MBA—failure is the worst of all nightmares. He seems off balance, as though self-confidence were a physical ballast that he is slowly losing. It’s heartbreaking how often he apologizes to me for losing so much of our money, for making so many mistakes.
I feel for him. Failure sucks. And yet, they're probably in one of the best positions in the US to get through it. They're not talking about losing their home, being permanently unemployed, being unable to afford healthcare. They're talking about not going to the opening night at the Met, not taking the company plane, not being able to automatically assume they can send their daughter to post-graduate education. It's kind of a different scale.
Still, her reaction pales in comparision to some of those in The Rage of the Privileged Class As It Loses Its Privileges.
“No offense to Middle America, but if someone went to Columbia or Wharton, [even if] their company is a fumbling, mismanaged bank, why should they all of a sudden be paid the same as the guy down the block who delivers restaurant supplies for Sysco out of a huge, shiny truck?” e-mails an irate Citigroup executive to a colleague.
No offense, hey? Try getting a plumber in the next couple of months. Also just because your parents could afford to send you to college does not automatically make you worthier, or more deserving of a higher income than someone who drives a truck[1]. Sheesh.
“I’m not giving to charity this year!” one hedge-fund analyst shouts into the phone, when I ask about Obama’s planned tax increases. “When people ask me for money, I tell them, ‘If you want me to give you money, send a letter to my senator asking for my taxes to be lowered.’
Heh, now that's a dummy-spit I can relate to.
Bonuses were paid based largely on short-term profits. “It was the culture of what some called IBG-YBG: I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone,” says Jonathan Knee, a senior managing director at Evercore Partners. Wall Street championed the ethos of “Eat what you kill.” The most aggressive employees, those who took the greatest risks, thought of themselves less as members of a firm and more as independent contractors entitled to their share of the profits.
And... that could explain at least part of how we got here. Thanks for the ride, guys. It's been fun. Hey at least you got good money while it was going.
In a recent Atlantic article, Johnson describes Wall Street’s influence as a ruling oligarchy, not dissimilar to those of the crony capitalists that have controlled the levers of power in places like Russia, Argentina, and Indonesia. The solution, according to people like Paul Krugman, is to make banking regulated, less profitable, and “boring” again.
When the profits depend on screwing as many people as you can and then running out the door? I'm all for less profitable.
“You can’t live in New York and have kids and send them to school on $75,000,” he continues. “And you have the Obama administration suggesting that. That was a very populist thing that Obama said. He’s being disingenuous. He knows that you can’t live in New York on $75,000.”
Hahahahahaha. And again, you're joking here aren't you? Because seriously? Lots of people do. OK, they're not forking out for the top private schools in order to get their kids networked from kindergarten, but they certainly manage to live and send their kids to school in New York. Just where, exactly, do you think your cleaners come from? And while I'm at it, how much were you paying the cleaners again?
Just months ago, the masses kept what anger they had to themselves, and the bankers were close-lipped about what they thought they were owed by society. There wasn’t much of a dialogue about the haves and have-nots and who was entitled to what. For the privileged, it was a lot more comfortable when things remained unspoken. Almost more than the loss of money, they are concerned with the loss of status and pride.
Yeah, it's always a bit confronting having someone pointing out that you're being overpaid.
It's going to be interesting to see how this all sorts itself out. I doubt very much that revolution - particularly in the quite literal early communist Russian sense, where the elite were turfed onto the streets out of their 3rd floor apartments so the poor could occupy them - is likely to happen. I doubt that most of these (still) highly paid and presumably reasonably bright individuals are likely to fall too far. But how far they do fall, and how much or little the gap between the top and bottom earners in the country ends up being could be very interesting. Particularly when apparently more equal societies do better. Australia is also not great with this, despite our egalitarian founder myths.
The richest fifth in the US, Britain and Australia have respectively 8.5, 7.2 and seven times more income than the poorest fifth, or double the inequality of Japan and Scandinavian countries.
Even affluent opponents of greater equality may rethink their position after reading the very negative impact of social divisions on social health — high stress and crime levels, underfunded public services, violence and widespread fear and communal distrust.
Especially if that communal distrust comes with pitchforks.
[1] When I was writing my thesis I considered getting a truck license and driving with Post for a while (I was tired and possibly clinically insane). Those guys earn bloody good money, what with the overtime and all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-24 11:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-24 12:29 pm (UTC)75k in New York City proper is about as low as you can afford to support three kids on. And this is assuming public schools, and going to goodwill for clothes.
Now, if you want to know where the blue collar support staff live if that's true has a couple of answers. If you're making under 40k year, there is low income housing available. A lot of them live in the suburbs, or with their parents, or whatever -- it's possible to live outside of New York, and work in New York. And there are a fair number of blue collar jobs that pay better than 75k; building superintendents tend to make more than that, as do a fair percentage of city employees, and a fair percentage of people who own and operate small businesses like bodegas and restaurants and so on.
Rents have come down quite a bit from last year, say. But New York is a genuinely that expensive a place to live.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 03:35 am (UTC)ACcording to the US Census Bureau the median 2007 household income in New York (state I think, it's not entirely clear from how it's phrased) was $53,448.
Ah, the median household income (2007) for New York County comes out at $63,704, which is slightly above the state median. Admittedly (from what I can work out on the map at least) that does include Manhattan, where we'd all like to live if we won Tattslotto, at least for a month until Dean got sick of the noise and decided to move to somewhere else instead[1]. The Bronx on the other hand comes out with $38,031; Queens with $52,944; Kings with $41,304. So I'm assuming pretty much everyone commutes in from the counties next door (which I always thought were part of NYC, geographically challenged, that's me. Then again I always thought LA and Santa Monica were the same city, which they're not. *shrug*)
So a quick solution to having to live on under $57K would be of course to move out and commute like everyone else.. heh. ;-)
[1] Quite possibly Phoenix, he liked it there. Then we'd have to go home, cos Tatts doesn't actually pay out that much.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 09:33 pm (UTC)And the prices reflect that -- you can get somewhere out in Flushing, say, for $1400 a month, maybe, but if you're looking in Park Slope, it's going to be as expensive as somewhere in Upper Manhattan. In theory, there are places in that range in some of the less affluent sections of Manhattan as well, but those are usually on the upper floors of non-elevator buildings, which is hard to manage with kids.
The median income for Manhattan is a bit misleading; the last time I looked at it, it was a sort of bimodal distribution -- a lot of people over $150k, and a lot under $15k. If you're making less than 50k, there's several varieties of government housing available, ranging from housing projects to below market rate apartments in new buildings. The less you make, the likelier you are to get that sort of thing.
The closest thing a casual google turns up to a cite for this sort of thing is a slightly dated bit from the New York Times (http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/SamRoberts4Sep05.htm); the relevant quote being:
In the 75k range, there are a few neighborhoods in Manhattan which would be doable -- parts of Harlem, Inwood, and Washington Heights, but it'd be hard to manage that with multiple kids, and the public schools are going to be a bit scary. The more gentrified parts of the outer boroughs are similarly just on the edge of reasonable, and in the more suburban parts, 75k will keep your head over water, but you aren't going to be saving that much. New Jersey is probably the better option; taxes are lower, and food is cheaper.
(Do I think that bank executives should be earning less than $100k a year? Yeah, pretty much. Will that mean they have to move out of NYC? Yeah, pretty much, if they want to send their kids to any sort of private school.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 12:27 am (UTC)Ah that makes more sense (and also makes me giggle a bit - Zamalek really is the 'Manhattan of Cairo', and not just because it's on an island, I think the income discrepancy would be even more acute there.)
(Do I think that bank executives should be earning less than $100k a year? Yeah, pretty much. Will that mean they have to move out of NYC? Yeah, pretty much, if they want to send their kids to any sort of private school.)
My problem with the earnings is less the actual amount and more the discrepancy between what the top CEO and the lowest paid workers in the same company are earning. I can't find the figures offhand, but my understanding is that the gap rose considerably during the past 20 years.
And don't get me started on bonuses - as far as I'm concerned, bonuses are the tipping of the finance industry. If it's OK for the restaurant industry to pay their workers less than minimum wage "because they'll make it up in tips" it should be fine for CEOs to be paid the equivalent of the dole, because "they'll make it up in bonuses."
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 12:27 am (UTC)