Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I thought this was particularly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02508.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few years ago, a Goldman Sachs banker, still shy of his 40th birthday and worth, I was reliably told, some $80 million, told me that he wasn't in his line of work for the money. "If I was doing this for the money," he said, with no trace of irony, "I'd be at a hedge fund."

What to say? Though such a statement is perhaps only fathomable on a small plot of real estate in Lower Manhattan at the dawn of the 21st century, it suggests how insular and debauched our ruling class has become.

For several years I've predicted that a new wild card in American life -- the presence of economic resentment at the bottom of the top 1 percent of our income distribution -- would become a powerful force for reform. The SEC's fraud case against Goldman Sachs may be the first shot in what I think of as the revolt of the "lower upper class."

Lower Uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers and lawyers. At companies they're mostly people above the rank of vice president and below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even part-time Post columnists who earn their livings as consultants). They include government officials -- and, yes, SEC lawyers -- who didn't make or inherit fortunes before entering public service. Lower Uppers are professionals who by dint of education, hard work and good luck are living better than 99 percent of anyone who has ever walked the planet. They're also people who can't help but notice how many people with credentials much like their own seem to be living in the kind of Gatsby-like splendor they'll never enjoy.

There's only so much of this indignity a smart, vocal elite can take. It's only a matter of time before the dam breaks and the new class war begins -- not some retro showdown between proletarians and capitalists, but between the Lower Uppers and the Ultrarich.

Think of SEC vs. Goldman, then, as the Lower Uppers' Lexington and Concord. As Lower Uppers lash out, the public will cheer. Eliot Spitzer's crusade against Wall Street when he was attorney general was hugely popular. Voters who distrust government tell pollsters they still want greedy bankers brought to heel. There's a political opening for a "comeuppance" agenda that starts with the financial regulatory reform President Obama is pressing this week.

But it hardly ends there. The next big skirmish will be taxes. And it brings out the beast in even rumpled Lower Uppers.

As a "lower lower upper", I couldn't agree more.

AZGrizFan wrote:As a "lower lower upper", I couldn't agree more.

So true - as the lower fraction of the upper class we get hammered by taxes.. while the guys who really have the dough are in a far greater position to hide their money from the Federal Government

I was looking at my paycheck last Friday and I laughed out loud when I glanced over the deductions portion...
It's absolutely ridiculous how much is taken out

(and no may taxes are not higher this year than last year... I only worked a few weeks last year, long story, I needed some me time and a re-evaluation of my life priorities...)

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:As a "lower lower upper", I couldn't agree more.

So true - as the lower fraction of the upper class we get hammered by taxes.. while the guys who really have the dough are in a far greater position to hide their money from the Federal Government

I was looking at my paycheck last Friday and I laughed out loud when I glanced over the deductions portion...
It's absolutely ridiculous how much is taken out

(and no may taxes are not higher this year than last year... I only worked a few weeks last year, long story, I needed some me time and a re-evaluation of my life priorities...)

You still need some time and a re-evaluation of your life priorities.

AZGrizFan wrote:As a "lower lower upper", I couldn't agree more.

I was thinking of you when I read the article.

Class warfare waging, wealth redristiubuting, social injustice promoting, thieves!

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:As a "lower lower upper", I couldn't agree more.

I was thinking of you when I read the article.

Also sodomy.

andy7171 wrote:

danefan wrote:
I was thinking of you when I read the article.

Also sodomy.

Of course.

native wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
So true - as the lower fraction of the upper class we get hammered by taxes.. while the guys who really have the dough are in a far greater position to hide their money from the Federal Government

I was looking at my paycheck last Friday and I laughed out loud when I glanced over the deductions portion...
It's absolutely ridiculous how much is taken out

(and no may taxes are not higher this year than last year... I only worked a few weeks last year, long story, I needed some me time and a re-evaluation of my life priorities...)

You still need some time and a re-evaluation of your life priorities.

Well I see...
You know I really really wanted to go on unemployment and then scan an unemployment check and post it on here just to show AZ (who at the time was really upset about all the free loaders on unemployment) but I'll have you know it's not as easy to get free money as I thought it would be...

The State of Washington would not give me unemployment even though I was unemployed - they had all kinds of rules and stuff related to actually getting on the program... who knew..? If you listened to the Republicans I thought they just wrote you checks for no reason and handed over people wads of cash

Apparently the rules are:
1) You can't just willingly be "not working" and get unemployment - you must be actively searching for work (yuk)
2) You can't be receiving severance package or anything subject to FICA and past work projects
3) It's only $600 a week max - no matter how much you've pain into the system

free-loading is not as easy as I had dreamed it would be...

danefan wrote:I thought this was particularly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02508.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few years ago, a Goldman Sachs banker, still shy of his 40th birthday and worth, I was reliably told, some $80 million, told me that he wasn't in his line of work for the money. "If I was doing this for the money," he said, with no trace of irony, "I'd be at a hedge fund."

What to say? Though such a statement is perhaps only fathomable on a small plot of real estate in Lower Manhattan at the dawn of the 21st century, it suggests how insular and debauched our ruling class has become.

For several years I've predicted that a new wild card in American life -- the presence of economic resentment at the bottom of the top 1 percent of our income distribution -- would become a powerful force for reform. The SEC's fraud case against Goldman Sachs may be the first shot in what I think of as the revolt of the "lower upper class."

Lower Uppers are doctors, accountants, engineers and lawyers. At companies they're mostly people above the rank of vice president and below the CEO. Their comrades include well-fed members of the media (and even part-time Post columnists who earn their livings as consultants). They include government officials -- and, yes, SEC lawyers -- who didn't make or inherit fortunes before entering public service. Lower Uppers are professionals who by dint of education, hard work and good luck are living better than 99 percent of anyone who has ever walked the planet. They're also people who can't help but notice how many people with credentials much like their own seem to be living in the kind of Gatsby-like splendor they'll never enjoy.

There's only so much of this indignity a smart, vocal elite can take. It's only a matter of time before the dam breaks and the new class war begins -- not some retro showdown between proletarians and capitalists, but between the Lower Uppers and the Ultrarich.

Think of SEC vs. Goldman, then, as the Lower Uppers' Lexington and Concord. As Lower Uppers lash out, the public will cheer. Eliot Spitzer's crusade against Wall Street when he was attorney general was hugely popular. Voters who distrust government tell pollsters they still want greedy bankers brought to heel. There's a political opening for a "comeuppance" agenda that starts with the financial regulatory reform President Obama is pressing this week.

But it hardly ends there. The next big skirmish will be taxes. And it brings out the beast in even rumpled Lower Uppers.

Good article. In college I was very interested in class dynamics and took a few classes on the subject with the late Dr. Tom Norton (also a former Lafayette Football player). The true top of the heap is really "out of sight" to even other highly successful individuals. That guy at Goldman has the same education and skills as 1,000's of others who make good livings, but a fraction of his salary. The guy is smart and a hard worker, but his $ is also a product of timing and good fortune. I am all about capatilism, but some regulation reform is ok in my book (assuming its well thought out).

The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

JoltinJoe wrote:The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

Bingo...

Chizzang wrote:

native wrote:
You still need some time and a re-evaluation of your life priorities.

Well I see...
You know I really really wanted to go on unemployment and then scan an unemployment check and post it on here just to show AZ (who at the time was really upset about all the free loaders on unemployment) but I'll have you know it's not as easy to get free money as I thought it would be...

The State of Washington would not give me unemployment even though I was unemployed - they had all kinds of rules and stuff related to actually getting on the program... who knew..? If you listened to the Republicans I thought they just wrote you checks for no reason and handed over people wads of cash

Apparently the rules are:
1) You can't just willingly be "not working" and get unemployment - you must be actively searching for work (yuk)
2) You can't be receiving severance package or anything subject to FICA and past work projects
3) It's only $600 a week max - no matter how much you've pain into the system

free-loading is not as easy as I had dreamed it would be...

Well, remember, the rule 1) must be actively searching for work - requires no documentation or proof whatsoever. All you have to do is say that you are actively looking for work. Pennsylvania has the same stipulation and all it takes to satisfy that is to just checkoff a box that you are actively searching.

As for rule 2), if you get a severance package up front as many do (i.e. lump sum payment) then you can collect unemployment right away. Obviously, if you stay on the payroll as part of a severance package but don't have to work, that's not really that bad.

As for rule 3), yes, $31k a year is not something I'd like to live on, but I'm sure plenty of people can do so, especially if they had enough money to start.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Well I see...
You know I really really wanted to go on unemployment and then scan an unemployment check and post it on here just to show AZ (who at the time was really upset about all the free loaders on unemployment) but I'll have you know it's not as easy to get free money as I thought it would be...

The State of Washington would not give me unemployment even though I was unemployed - they had all kinds of rules and stuff related to actually getting on the program... who knew..? If you listened to the Republicans I thought they just wrote you checks for no reason and handed over people wads of cash

Apparently the rules are:
1) You can't just willingly be "not working" and get unemployment - you must be actively searching for work (yuk)
2) You can't be receiving severance package or anything subject to FICA and past work projects
3) It's only $600 a week max - no matter how much you've pain into the system

free-loading is not as easy as I had dreamed it would be...

Well, remember, the rule 1) must be actively searching for work - requires no documentation or proof whatsoever. All you have to do is say that you are actively looking for work. Pennsylvania has the same stipulation and all it takes to satisfy that is to just checkoff a box that you are actively searching.

As for rule 2), if you get a severance package up front as many do (i.e. lump sum payment) then you can collect unemployment right away. Obviously, if you stay on the payroll as part of a severance package but don't have to work, that's not really that bad.

As for rule 3), yes, $31k a year is not something I'd like to live on, but I'm sure plenty of people can do so, especially if they had enough money to start.

bingo!

The tax thing is interesting...

... one of the great flaws of our tax system is that the truly wealthy skate while the high income earners (and NO, they're not necessarily the same) get hammered.

blueballs wrote:The tax thing is interesting...

... one of the great flaws of our tax system is that the truly wealthy skate while the high income earners (and NO, they're not necessarily the same) get hammered.

From an effective rate standpoint its the absolute truth.

I also find it interesting that (corect me if I'm wrong) all of the Democratic presidents we've had in the modern era have been the "Lower Upper Class" while all of the Republican presidents we've had have been the Ultrarich.

blueballs wrote:The tax thing is interesting...

... one of the great flaws of our tax system is that the truly wealthy skate while the high income earners (and NO, they're not necessarily the same) get hammered.

This has been my observation also...

JoltinJoe wrote:The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

Absolutely. Smarts, luck, and a certain degree of sociopathic behaviour. Which makes the notion of an unregulated self correcting free market pure insanity.

danefan wrote:

blueballs wrote:The tax thing is interesting...

... one of the great flaws of our tax system is that the truly wealthy skate while the high income earners (and NO, they're not necessarily the same) get hammered.

From an effective rate standpoint its the absolute truth.

I also find it interesting that (corect me if I'm wrong) all of the Democratic presidents we've had in the modern era have been the "Lower Upper Class" while all of the Republican presidents we've had have been the Ultrarich.

Reagan was "ultrarich"? I think Obama made more last year than Reagan ever made in his BEST year...even adjusted for inflation.

JoltinJoe wrote:The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

So because they're Wall Street multi millionaires, they have no principles? What about the ones that worked hard to get there, without stepping on anyone in the process? We probably don't hear about them, but why not, let's just claim they have no principles. Sucks that we can't become rich in America without being second-guessed on how we got there, even if you did nothin'. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the way this country is headin'...politically, religiously, and socially.

∞∞∞ wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

So because they're Wall Street multi millionaires, they have no principles? What about the ones that worked hard to get there, without stepping on anyone in the process? We probably don't hear about them, but why not, let's just claim they have no principles. Sucks that we can't become rich in America without being second-guessed on how we got there, even if you did nothin'. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the way this country is headin'...politically, religiously, and socially.

In the court of public opinion you don't even need a preponderance of evidence.

The revolt of the lower middle class conservative straight Caucasian whiny *ss baby boomer male........otherwise known as a Tea Bagger.

mainejeff wrote:The revolt of the lower middle class conservative straight Caucasian whiny *ss baby boomer male........otherwise known as a Tea Bagger.

Something you can aspire to.

mainejeff wrote:The revolt of the lower middle class conservative straight Caucasian whiny *ss baby boomer male........otherwise known as a Tea Bagger.

Hey, Knucklehead, wake up and go to sleep.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

∞∞∞ wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:The only difference between the "Lower Upper Class" and the Wall Street multi-millionaires is that members of the Lower Upper Class couldn't do what the Wall Street guys are doing and still look at themselves in the mirror.

Just the other day, I commented to someone that those guys on Wall Street think they make so much money because they are smarter than everyone, when the real reason is that they simply have no principles.

So because they're Wall Street multi millionaires, they have no principles? What about the ones that worked hard to get there, without stepping on anyone in the process? We probably don't hear about them, but why not, let's just claim they have no principles. Sucks that we can't become rich in America without being second-guessed on how we got there, even if you did nothin'. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the way this country is headin'...politically, religiously, and socially.

From where I work, I see this everyday. There is plenty of money to be made the right way on Wall Street, but over the past 15 years or so, much more money to be made by creating the short-term appearance of profit, which is
assessed on quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis. So Wall Street execs have been consumed with a desire to engage in a transactions which can be booked with profitability immediately, even if there may be substantial tail risks also being assumed.

Note the financial institutions which came through the recent financial crisis relatively unscathed (TIAA-CREF, etc.) are firms which do not tie performance bonuses explicitly to the executive's own creation of short-term profits, but rather to the overall profitability of the firm. Such a compensation system does not promote or reward an individual's reckless, short-sighted risk-taking in the manner described above. Of course, these firms also do not pay bonuses in the seven figures to anyone.

There is still plenty of money to be made the right way on Wall Street but, at those firms paying obscene multi-million bonuses, those indivdiuals who tried to engage in old-fashioned risk assessments were completely trampled internally over the past 10-15 years by those whose sole motivation was the creation of the appearance of short-term profits.

It may be true that some of these execs were simply greedy and not smart enough to understand the risks they were assuming; but most understood, and just chose to do it anyway.

This is not just idle message board speculations. I actually moderated a panel discussion at a Rutger Graduate Business School symposium recently, -- and every expert on the panel held the same assessment, as stated above.

In the end, we should be alarmed by market bubbles caused by Wall Street speculation in unregulated financial products. Wall Street money gets drawn to unregulated financial products, like mortgage-backed securities and other like derivatives, simply because they are unregulated and thus often present an opportunity to exploit for short-term profit-taking.