And frankly, the outsourcing of work, and the quest for ever greater and greater profit (with just making a solid profit not being enough) and the creation of an elite that expects to earn millions of dollars a year and has only disdain for the rest of us.
p>Free labor requires a living wage; slave labor does not. Maybe it is time to remember that.
david-whelansays
Perhaps it’s simpler than that. I know myself I have the need for office help but have no idea what this economy will look like in 6 months. So with the cost to train an employee on top of workers comp and payroll taxes I do the work myself. The Travaglini example is interesting. I am in the money management business and his comp frankly is not that high. That tells me that his job can be done by lots of folks, thus no great loss to the Commonwealth. See ya later!
amberpawsays
Then that puts you in the top 1% – and I have to wonder how much you know about the life of most working people, or what a living wage means to a family – a living wage being $20 an hour, or about $38,000 a year which is the average working person’s income. That means fully 50% of working folks earn less than that.
david-whelansays
If you are good at the money management business, $322k is not much. You may not agree with the fact that a money mgr is worth $322k, but baseball players are probably not worth $10 million. Your values are not consistent with reality. If it makes you feel better I think you are correct.
seascrapersays
The question is whether the system of investing towards some production is deliberately over-complicated so that we need money managers to cover risks that don’t need to be there, such as arbitrary swings in currency values that weren’t there during the boom times of the 50s and 60s.
<
p>I would be very willing to reward money managers even more for setting up investments in fast-growing productive companies. That’s not what is happening however. The current system denigrates the physical, and the biggest investment banks are simply hedging around actions of government and paying off elected and appointed officials so they get a bailout when things go wrong.
<
p>I think Deborah has accurately described in her other posts (although from a leftward view I don’t share) the effects of a system where the balance has swung far from the physical production and towards intellectual manipulation — even while we buy more physical stuff than ever. The effect has been to create a machine which tears up human beings, a system which has been with us since the 1970s and from which springs a hundred different social pathologies we could all name.
<
p>Maybe because there is so much distance between elite bankers making more and more intricate deals to build nothing and high-school educated men falling behind in income year after year that it’s hard to believe such happenings are related, but they are.
mizjonessays
I recall a wise tip from a salesman friend: “Your worth is what you can convince people to pay you.”
<
p>What I don’t understand about the top “earning” 1% is that with the exception of entertainers, whose value can be measured in sales or playing statistics, the compensation seems to have little relation to performance. Ordinary working people face consequences when they don’t measure up. The guys on top get government bailouts or golden parachutes.
<
p>The arrogance of this class boggles my mind.
petrsays
If you are good at the money management business, $322k is not much. You may not agree with the fact that a money mgr is worth $322k, but baseball players are probably not worth $10 million. Your values are not consistent with reality. If it makes you feel better I think you are correct.
<
p>With baseball players, at least, there is a causal relationship between the number of paying customers and the ability of the ballplayer to command a significant salary. And, of course, the moment those asses lift themselves outta the seats is the moment the player gets a smaller contract.
<
p>”Worth” is, at best, a fungible concept. What is not fungible are expectations and, I respectfully submit, that the general thrust of AmberPaws argument is that there is a great world of difference between what you think you can get out of a more-or-less functional market and what you think you deserve from fleecing the suckers.
<
p>But there are no countervailing limits, similar to ballpark attendance, in ‘money management’ that govern salaries. And you, of all people here (if you are in the business…) ought to know that being good at “money management”, relies, in no small part, on innumeracy and, frankly, stupidity, upon the part of clientele and not, in nearly any way, upon the acumen or skill of the money managers. (When I was younger, “selling short” was often seen as a real gamble, and one predicated on the assumption of faulty analysis on somebody elses part… Now it’s just business as usual…) Being in the business and believing otherwise relies upon self-delusion on a magnificent scale.
david-whelansays
Me of all people? I am, in fact, in the business. I care to make no moral argument that being paid a lot to manage money is right or wrong. What I tried to say is that it is true that if you are pretty good at it, $322k per year is not abnormal.
<
p>www.finra.org
<
p>Look it up.
petrsays
I care to make no moral argument that being paid a lot to manage money is right or wrong. What I tried to say is that it is true that if you are pretty good at it, $322k per year is not abnormal.
<
p>What you tried to say is weak tea to help you sleep at night.
<
p>What I say is that there is no basis for 322K/year other than some idiots sense of another idiots worth. And the easiest way to gloss over this fact is to fleece the unwashed in search of outsized profits… You’re certainly making no attempt at keeping costs in control…. Of course, if you are the idiot dishing out dozens of instances of 322K/year indiscriminately, and seeking obscene profits to cover the fact that this makes no sense… that last thing in the world you’re ready to do is to admit to it…
<
p>
david-whelansays
I don’t make $322k per year. Not even close. I wish I did but I don’t. If I could change the world I would start with a new set of ears for you and a fucking brain for you that worked. If it makes you feel better I am a middle income guy struggling to put a kid thru college this year knowing next year I will have two in college. So go fuck yourself. Also for what it is worth Travalini does not work for me so I don’t control his comp. I say let the hack go. As for others making $322k, if their clients think they are worth it then so be it. It’s America, remember.
kathysays
Everytime I read a thread, there you are launching personal attacks on posters when they disagree with you. I’d be willing to bet that you wouldn’t do this if they were standing in front of you, unless you really do have anger management issues. Honestly, it detracts from your argument when you resort to personal attacks and affects the quality of the discussions.
david-whelansays
kathysays
And these kind of responses clearly show that you do have obvious anger management issues. đŸ™‚
centralmassdadsays
The guy never said a thing about his own income; everyone assumed what it must be because he wasn’t suitably appalled at the money that Travaligni is/was getting. From there we went directly to wondering how he sleeps at night, after all the fleecing of the poor people he does.
<
p>And then we lecture the guy for “personal attacks”? Not in this thread, anyway.
kathysays
Plus it’s a pattern with this poster. It seems he can’t be a big boy and debate a topic without resorting to personal attacks. It’s reeaaallly tiresome, and against the forum rules.
david-whelansays
Actually I’m not sorry. My original point in the string of comments was in support of the post. Try listening (or reading) before you rip me apart for being an ass. No regrets!
kathysays
All the time. Even if you make a good point, though rare, it detracts from its validity. I read the string. It’s not about the content, but your constant attacks on posters who disagree with you.
huhsays
At least judging by how often JohnD, EdgarTheArmenian, Don’t Get Cute, David Whelan, Demolisher, Seascraper and PaulSimmons use similar terms to describe people they’re arguing with.
<
p>If it weren’t that be a violation of the RoTR and result in a pompous letter from Bob Neer, right? Right?
centralmassdadsays
I’m not commenting on things he has done elsewhere. It just seemed a little silly to call him out on this thread, in which the majority of the personal attacks were directed to him, not perpetrated by him.
stomvsays
CMD: show me the personal attacks on DW. I just read the whole thing, and I don’t see ’em. I see where DW is accused of making $300k, and how that sort of became an accepted fact. I see where somebody wrote the word idiot, but the first two times were referring to the person who decides another person should be paid $300k+, and the person paid $300k+. Neither seems to be DW, so he wasn’t called an idiot there. The last time ‘idiot’ was used again referred to the person responsible for paying folks $300k a year.
<
p>So, where’s the personal attack on DW? I don’t see it. I do see DW dropping all sorts of words which would earn him a smack from my mother if he ever said them in front of her.
p>To review: AmberPaw was outraged that, given the overall employment picture, an overpaid state employee quit for better opportunities.
<
p>DW essentially said that the guy’s salary isn’t unusual in the business, which is true. From there, commenters made an assumption that DW must make more than that.
<
p>The above-linked commenter then opined that DW, like everyone in that business, is, in essence, an immoral thief. (Not unlike the guy who thinks lawyers are overpaid until he needs one.)
<
p>Then, when DW simply said they quoted salary isn’t out of line, the commenter gave him the “how you sleep at night” routine.
<
p>So, yes, when a discussion of reality on what is supposed to be a reality based blog devolves into sanctimonious denunciations of the sinner from the pulpit, I think it is a personal attack. And, at least on this thread, DW’s response was more restrained than it might have been.
kathysays
It shows great self-control on David’s part that he didn’t toss around f-bombs.
centralmassdadsays
It did.
kirthsays
He did throw those F-bombs, including the classy Dick Cheney one. Not the kind of behavior we expect from grownups.
stomvsays
The above-linked commenter then opined that DW, like everyone in that business, is, in essence, an immoral thief. (Not unlike the guy who thinks lawyers are overpaid until he needs one.)
<
p>He did no such thing. You made that up out of whole cloth. He did call some folks idiots (as I outlined in my post)… and as it turns out, none of the folks who petr called an idiot included DW. None of ’em.
<
p>Now if you want to interpret the conversation to mean that DW is an immoral thief, that’s up to you. But nowhere did petr write anything anywhere near that.
<
p>I’m quite sure that neither “weak tea” nor “help you sleep at night” is considered a personal attack by the vast majority of this community. I am sure, however, that leading a post with “Hey moron” is.
<
p>
<
p>DW has gone way over the line multiple times on multiple threads, complete with attacks and four letter words. What I can say for damn sure is that David Whelan’s behavior is boorish and consistently out of line, and that were I an editor for BMG, I’d have kindly invited him to take a vacation from this blog a long time ago.
mizjonessays
say more about you than they do about their target.
hrs-kevinsays
When you talk like that you only guarantee that fewer people will take you seriously in the future. I understand your frustration, but you clearly do have an anger management problem, and I have no doubt it not only hurts your reputation in this forum but in your real life as well.
petrsays
As for others making $322k, if their clients think they are worth it then so be it.
<
p>Well, now, that is the point, innit? I mean, if “regulatory capture” is a problem (and it is) why are clients immune? Can they not be ‘captured’ also? If somebody can be duped into buying instruments with AAA ratings that, if scratched even lightly upon the surface, are revealed to be no better than junk… why can’t they be duped into thinking some so called expert deserves the salary he/she is given? Of course they can. And it is but a short step from “this person deserves this salary because of their expertise” to the more invidious “this person must have expertise because of this salary…” It is, perhaps, even a bigger problem than regulatory capture: this insane obeisance to ‘expertise’ that, and you know this, isn’t really there. One can imagine a rather vicious feedback mechanism when a more-or-less rationale worth-expertise-earnings-productivity loop is replaced by a vague bequeathment of earnings mistaken for expertise…
<
p>Or, put another way, how far would (could) someone go in order to justify a salary that can’t possibly be justified? Pretty far, I should think, if only in the direction of extreme cognitive dissonance…
<
p>Calvin and Hobbes played calvinball whose only rule was that no rule lasts all that long. You can end up with a score of 35 to Q, or a score of ‘oogy’ to ‘boogy’. You are not allowed to question the use of masks, however… It is just this kind of scorekeeping that the so-call financial experts engage in… deciding upon some arbitrary ‘more’ to define an equally arbitrary ‘expertise’. Those on the sidelines, not directly privy to the exact nature of this ‘expertise’ ( clients, regulators, investors, etc… ) all have chosen to cheer as though at an actual sporting event, rather than making the rather pointed statement that the game, and its score, is increasingly a farther distance from reality every time you look.
<
p>Now you can make the claim that clients have the rather special right to be stupid and to throw their money at whatever fanciful scheme they like, and so they have. But, I contend, that far far fewer would do so, at the present pinch, if they listened to that little voice reminding them that this game makes no sense…
<
p>All of this is just to come to the word of advice: If your offspring elect to study ‘business’ or ‘finance’ at whatever college they are, or will be, attending… don’t pay for it. If they are quite set on a career in either ‘business’ or ‘finance’ I would recommend a course of study in sociology and psychology. They’ll better be equipped to see the sharks before they swarm…
hrs-kevinsays
when you said that AmberPaw’s values were “not consistent with reality”.
roarkarchitectsays
I’m hesitant to hire, I’m not sure where the economy is going to go. I can’t get a quote on my health insurance policies and my UI rates have tripled. I don’t want to hire someone and have to lay them off.
<
p>
mizjonessays
If these were not tied so closely, you wouldn’t have that concern.
petrsays
And frankly, the outsourcing of work, and the quest for ever greater and greater profit (with just making a solid profit not being enough) and the creation of an elite that expects to earn millions of dollars a year and has only disdain for the rest of us.
I recall a state employee, Michael Travaglini, quitting because he was only paid $322,000.00 per year and would not longer get bonuses!
Free labor requires a living wage; slave labor does not. Maybe it is time to remember that.
<
p>Oh my, no… It’s much much worse than that.
<
p>Obscene profits and the concomitant elitism aren’t, as I’ve seen, products of greed so much as products of incompetence and the shortsightedness that is wired into the system. Many money managers that I’ve met have a difficult time successfully picking their noses and, therefore, ought not to be left in charge of organizations of any size. That they are, in fact, left in charge leads them to seek outsized profits to cover both the stupid decisions they make and the shoddy way in which their companies are run (or not, as the case may be…) After all, if you end up paying someone a salary that they are not worth, well… If you can’t run a small business you ought not be put in charge of large sums of money. It’s a simple as that.
<
p>There are, in short, no ‘solid profits’ to be had and sometimes the quest for greater and greater profitis is the only way to ensure any profits and can lead to two things: A) every bet is riskier than the last and relies upon complex instruments to get there and 2) advantages are sought, however morally suspect they might become.. .
<
p>With respect to riskier and riskier bets: the only way to be sure of any profits whatsoever is to shoot for the moon. Of course, shooting for the moon, and occasionally getting there, is a wonderful boost to the ego…
<
p>On the other hand, with respect to seeking advantages, It is remarkably easy, if you know even a little about mathematics, to fleece those who, remarkably, don’t know very much about mathematics. This, of course, can also lead to an inflated sense of your own ego: if you begin to prey exclusively on the weak you’re going to end up seeing yourself as incredibly strong.
<
p>Or, put another way, just as Bernie Madoff had to fleece more and more sheep (running in place…) so to the modern day money manager, with wild swings deriving from riskier and riskier bets CANNOT rely upon ‘solid profits’ and must shoot for the moon with a steady supply of willing dupes.
<
p>And, frankly, I think Travaglini got out because the job was too too easy in good times and too too difficult at others.. The fact that he puts forward any other reason is sufficient indication of the fragility of his ego.
afsays
was not the total compensation he was receiving, but his excuse that he was leaving because he had a family to support and needed the bonus compensation he could get in the private sector to do so, as if $322K just didn’t stretch far enough. I see his decision as one driven by greed and jealousy, greed by wanting more than is necessary to support a good life, and jealousy of the salaries earned by those in the private sector doing similar jobs.
bluemoon4554says
Just ask any fresh college grad today about entry level jobs … they don’t exist anymore, unless you’re from one of the ivy’s and get recruited to one of the top exclusive companies out there. Almost every employer out there are only looking for the candidate with a Master’s degree and 8-12 years experience in the field, and basically refusing to hire anything less than that expectation. Many of you in your 40’s and up have no idea how many young college grads have gone back to school after they obtained their Bachelors in once flourishing fields and decide to head into nursing programs or other medical imaging related fields because that is the only field hiring in mass right now. You will see countless stories in a few years of there being too many RN’s and not enough decent jobs for them.
<
p>We are at a point where employers are uncertain about our economic future and not looking to hire along with ever increasing unrealistic standards, jobs that continue to fly out of this country via outsourcing, and a college degree being worth the same as a high school diploma was 30 years ago, (in terms of setting yourself apart in applying for a job and qualifications) but costs almost 10X as much as it did 30 years ago.
<
p>Give it 5-10 years, and you will see 9-10% unemployment regarded as full employment just like how it’s been for nearly a decade over in Europe.
jconwaysays
That has been my experience so far and I have been trying to get a job since September and come from one of the top ten schools in the country. I am incredibly fortunate that I qualified for significant financial aid as all the jobs I am looking at range from 30-50k and all want even more advanced degrees and prior experience. How can anyone get prior experience if they won’t let anyone new through the door?
<
p>What else are my options? Part of me wants to go to law school but that market is saturated, ditto getting my public admin MA. There is always the foreign service which tried to recruit me at one time, but I really want to stay in the US and my personal life (a very serious gf) prevents me from overseas travel for the time being anyway. It just sucks right now and I wish the government cared about us.
amberpawsays
Folks who went to law school did not, at one point, expect “jobs”. Abraham Lincoln hung up a shingle, and one client at a time, built a practice (including lucratively representing railroads). I have been an attorney in this state since 1985 without having a “job” – it is not an easy route, but I have maintained a middleclass income of between 60k – 100k depending on the year. In part, that is because the kind of law I ultimately choose was “people’s problems law”, mostly family law but also child welfare law, and I do more than my share of pro bono (that means unpaid) work, according to my spouse.
<
p>Doing the practice of law this way has allowed me to remain true to my ethical standards, and to fight for people who truly need advocacy.
<
p>If you really want to go to law school, the best way to do it is to get a 1 year paralegal certificate and earn $18 $50 an hour or more, and avoid law school debt and then just hang out your shingle, with or without a small business loan and job creation credits and DO IT. I know that is scary and takes some real planning but plenty of attorneys have done that.
<
p>The vast majority of attorneys are either self employed solos or in 1-3 person firms.
<
p>I did clerk for both a judge and a major law firm in Michigan, and choose the freedom of solo practice becaue of what I saw and learned in both those environments. My boss (me) doesn’t provide paid vacation or sick time, but I am at peace with myself over my path.
<
p>I am well aware that first year associates in big firms start at twice the best income I have ever earned – or more – despite my 17 reported decisions and the reality that I writing my 136th brief this weekend.
<
p>But then, in this country we value and financially reward those who control property far more than those who work with people, in any field of endeavor.
amberpawsays
Those were not intentional.
roarkarchitectsays
You made the right decision. Running your own business can be very rewarding (not necessarily financially) but you are on the line for the performance of the firm. I like that I always saw my kids off to school and almost never missed a school function. The trade off is never taking long vacations, phone calls at 1.00am, being the last paid, and having staff essentially becoming family members.
<
p>Anecdotally but I do business with a fair number of firms formed during the great depression – I’m thinking they were formed because the owners couldn’t find a job.
<
p>
centralmassdadsays
This is extraordinarily good advice. The Sallie Mae payments are option limiting in the extreme.
jconwaysays
I have been trying to apply to paralegal positions out here with no success thus far. I would much rather be in private practice, go into academia, or work for an organization I respect than be a corporate drone. My sister in law did that and it made her miserable. I am the type that would rather work for myself.
christophersays
Then they tell me I’m overqualified, which I’m trying to figure how happened since I feel like I’ve never had steady work.
Almost every employer out there are only looking for the candidate with a Master’s degree and 8-12 years experience in the field, and basically refusing to hire anything less than that expectation.
<
p>As someone with a Master’s degree and way more than 12 years experience, I’ve repeatedly been told: “We’re looking for entry-level people for our company (or consulting firm)whom we can then promote from within. With you’re experience, you are going to want an upper-level position. We’re not looking outside the company for that.”
<
p>I admit that I don’t want an entry-level position, but I don’t necessarily want an upper-level position either. I’d be satisfied with mid-level opportunities.
<
p>So, don’t automatically assume the search is any easier for people with experience.
bluemoon4554says
I’ve donesome reading on it, saying someone is overqualified is a new suggested “nice” way of telling a candidate they will going elsewhere in their search. I’ve got that back too a few times when I clearly know its not the case.
jconwaysays
Well maybe its a Chicago v Boston thing or I haven’t been looking at the right positions. Maybe we should switch applications.
mark-bailsays
out looking for a job.
<
p>I make about one-fifth of what David Whelan makes, but I’m happy with my job and have jobe security with 18 years in teaching.
<
p>Demand fluctuates in teaching too. Given the state budget over the next two years, we’re looking at cuts. I just hired a teacher for my department. All of the finalists had several years of teaching under their belt.
nickpsays
Wow! That’s some jobless recovery we have going.
david-whelansays
If he is as good at what he does as he intimates then why not stay here and do the private sector thing?
And frankly, the outsourcing of work, and the quest for ever greater and greater profit (with just making a solid profit not being enough) and the creation of an elite that expects to earn millions of dollars a year and has only disdain for the rest of us.
<
p>I recall a state employee, Michael Travaglini, quitting because he was only paid $322,000.00 per year and would not longer get bonuses!
<
p>Free labor requires a living wage; slave labor does not. Maybe it is time to remember that.
Perhaps it’s simpler than that. I know myself I have the need for office help but have no idea what this economy will look like in 6 months. So with the cost to train an employee on top of workers comp and payroll taxes I do the work myself. The Travaglini example is interesting. I am in the money management business and his comp frankly is not that high. That tells me that his job can be done by lots of folks, thus no great loss to the Commonwealth. See ya later!
Then that puts you in the top 1% – and I have to wonder how much you know about the life of most working people, or what a living wage means to a family – a living wage being $20 an hour, or about $38,000 a year which is the average working person’s income. That means fully 50% of working folks earn less than that.
If you are good at the money management business, $322k is not much. You may not agree with the fact that a money mgr is worth $322k, but baseball players are probably not worth $10 million. Your values are not consistent with reality. If it makes you feel better I think you are correct.
The question is whether the system of investing towards some production is deliberately over-complicated so that we need money managers to cover risks that don’t need to be there, such as arbitrary swings in currency values that weren’t there during the boom times of the 50s and 60s.
<
p>I would be very willing to reward money managers even more for setting up investments in fast-growing productive companies. That’s not what is happening however. The current system denigrates the physical, and the biggest investment banks are simply hedging around actions of government and paying off elected and appointed officials so they get a bailout when things go wrong.
<
p>I think Deborah has accurately described in her other posts (although from a leftward view I don’t share) the effects of a system where the balance has swung far from the physical production and towards intellectual manipulation — even while we buy more physical stuff than ever. The effect has been to create a machine which tears up human beings, a system which has been with us since the 1970s and from which springs a hundred different social pathologies we could all name.
<
p>Maybe because there is so much distance between elite bankers making more and more intricate deals to build nothing and high-school educated men falling behind in income year after year that it’s hard to believe such happenings are related, but they are.
I recall a wise tip from a salesman friend: “Your worth is what you can convince people to pay you.”
<
p>What I don’t understand about the top “earning” 1% is that with the exception of entertainers, whose value can be measured in sales or playing statistics, the compensation seems to have little relation to performance. Ordinary working people face consequences when they don’t measure up. The guys on top get government bailouts or golden parachutes.
<
p>The arrogance of this class boggles my mind.
<
p>With baseball players, at least, there is a causal relationship between the number of paying customers and the ability of the ballplayer to command a significant salary. And, of course, the moment those asses lift themselves outta the seats is the moment the player gets a smaller contract.
<
p>”Worth” is, at best, a fungible concept. What is not fungible are expectations and, I respectfully submit, that the general thrust of AmberPaws argument is that there is a great world of difference between what you think you can get out of a more-or-less functional market and what you think you deserve from fleecing the suckers.
<
p>But there are no countervailing limits, similar to ballpark attendance, in ‘money management’ that govern salaries. And you, of all people here (if you are in the business…) ought to know that being good at “money management”, relies, in no small part, on innumeracy and, frankly, stupidity, upon the part of clientele and not, in nearly any way, upon the acumen or skill of the money managers. (When I was younger, “selling short” was often seen as a real gamble, and one predicated on the assumption of faulty analysis on somebody elses part… Now it’s just business as usual…) Being in the business and believing otherwise relies upon self-delusion on a magnificent scale.
Me of all people? I am, in fact, in the business. I care to make no moral argument that being paid a lot to manage money is right or wrong. What I tried to say is that it is true that if you are pretty good at it, $322k per year is not abnormal.
<
p>www.finra.org
<
p>Look it up.
<
p>What you tried to say is weak tea to help you sleep at night.
<
p>What I say is that there is no basis for 322K/year other than some idiots sense of another idiots worth. And the easiest way to gloss over this fact is to fleece the unwashed in search of outsized profits… You’re certainly making no attempt at keeping costs in control…. Of course, if you are the idiot dishing out dozens of instances of 322K/year indiscriminately, and seeking obscene profits to cover the fact that this makes no sense… that last thing in the world you’re ready to do is to admit to it…
<
p>
I don’t make $322k per year. Not even close. I wish I did but I don’t. If I could change the world I would start with a new set of ears for you and a fucking brain for you that worked. If it makes you feel better I am a middle income guy struggling to put a kid thru college this year knowing next year I will have two in college. So go fuck yourself. Also for what it is worth Travalini does not work for me so I don’t control his comp. I say let the hack go. As for others making $322k, if their clients think they are worth it then so be it. It’s America, remember.
Everytime I read a thread, there you are launching personal attacks on posters when they disagree with you. I’d be willing to bet that you wouldn’t do this if they were standing in front of you, unless you really do have anger management issues. Honestly, it detracts from your argument when you resort to personal attacks and affects the quality of the discussions.
And these kind of responses clearly show that you do have obvious anger management issues. đŸ™‚
The guy never said a thing about his own income; everyone assumed what it must be because he wasn’t suitably appalled at the money that Travaligni is/was getting. From there we went directly to wondering how he sleeps at night, after all the fleecing of the poor people he does.
<
p>And then we lecture the guy for “personal attacks”? Not in this thread, anyway.
Plus it’s a pattern with this poster. It seems he can’t be a big boy and debate a topic without resorting to personal attacks. It’s reeaaallly tiresome, and against the forum rules.
Actually I’m not sorry. My original point in the string of comments was in support of the post. Try listening (or reading) before you rip me apart for being an ass. No regrets!
All the time. Even if you make a good point, though rare, it detracts from its validity. I read the string. It’s not about the content, but your constant attacks on posters who disagree with you.
At least judging by how often JohnD, EdgarTheArmenian, Don’t Get Cute, David Whelan, Demolisher, Seascraper and PaulSimmons use similar terms to describe people they’re arguing with.
<
p>If it weren’t that be a violation of the RoTR and result in a pompous letter from Bob Neer, right? Right?
I’m not commenting on things he has done elsewhere. It just seemed a little silly to call him out on this thread, in which the majority of the personal attacks were directed to him, not perpetrated by him.
CMD: show me the personal attacks on DW. I just read the whole thing, and I don’t see ’em. I see where DW is accused of making $300k, and how that sort of became an accepted fact. I see where somebody wrote the word idiot, but the first two times were referring to the person who decides another person should be paid $300k+, and the person paid $300k+. Neither seems to be DW, so he wasn’t called an idiot there. The last time ‘idiot’ was used again referred to the person responsible for paying folks $300k a year.
<
p>So, where’s the personal attack on DW? I don’t see it. I do see DW dropping all sorts of words which would earn him a smack from my mother if he ever said them in front of her.
This is the comment I was referring to.
<
p>To review: AmberPaw was outraged that, given the overall employment picture, an overpaid state employee quit for better opportunities.
<
p>DW essentially said that the guy’s salary isn’t unusual in the business, which is true. From there, commenters made an assumption that DW must make more than that.
<
p>The above-linked commenter then opined that DW, like everyone in that business, is, in essence, an immoral thief. (Not unlike the guy who thinks lawyers are overpaid until he needs one.)
<
p>Then, when DW simply said they quoted salary isn’t out of line, the commenter gave him the “how you sleep at night” routine.
<
p>So, yes, when a discussion of reality on what is supposed to be a reality based blog devolves into sanctimonious denunciations of the sinner from the pulpit, I think it is a personal attack. And, at least on this thread, DW’s response was more restrained than it might have been.
It shows great self-control on David’s part that he didn’t toss around f-bombs.
It did.
He did throw those F-bombs, including the classy Dick Cheney one. Not the kind of behavior we expect from grownups.
<
p>He did no such thing. You made that up out of whole cloth. He did call some folks idiots (as I outlined in my post)… and as it turns out, none of the folks who petr called an idiot included DW. None of ’em.
<
p>Now if you want to interpret the conversation to mean that DW is an immoral thief, that’s up to you. But nowhere did petr write anything anywhere near that.
<
p>I’m quite sure that neither “weak tea” nor “help you sleep at night” is considered a personal attack by the vast majority of this community. I am sure, however, that leading a post with “Hey moron” is.
<
p>
<
p>DW has gone way over the line multiple times on multiple threads, complete with attacks and four letter words. What I can say for damn sure is that David Whelan’s behavior is boorish and consistently out of line, and that were I an editor for BMG, I’d have kindly invited him to take a vacation from this blog a long time ago.
say more about you than they do about their target.
When you talk like that you only guarantee that fewer people will take you seriously in the future. I understand your frustration, but you clearly do have an anger management problem, and I have no doubt it not only hurts your reputation in this forum but in your real life as well.
<
p>Well, now, that is the point, innit? I mean, if “regulatory capture” is a problem (and it is) why are clients immune? Can they not be ‘captured’ also? If somebody can be duped into buying instruments with AAA ratings that, if scratched even lightly upon the surface, are revealed to be no better than junk… why can’t they be duped into thinking some so called expert deserves the salary he/she is given? Of course they can. And it is but a short step from “this person deserves this salary because of their expertise” to the more invidious “this person must have expertise because of this salary…” It is, perhaps, even a bigger problem than regulatory capture: this insane obeisance to ‘expertise’ that, and you know this, isn’t really there. One can imagine a rather vicious feedback mechanism when a more-or-less rationale worth-expertise-earnings-productivity loop is replaced by a vague bequeathment of earnings mistaken for expertise…
<
p>Or, put another way, how far would (could) someone go in order to justify a salary that can’t possibly be justified? Pretty far, I should think, if only in the direction of extreme cognitive dissonance…
<
p>Calvin and Hobbes played calvinball whose only rule was that no rule lasts all that long. You can end up with a score of 35 to Q, or a score of ‘oogy’ to ‘boogy’. You are not allowed to question the use of masks, however… It is just this kind of scorekeeping that the so-call financial experts engage in… deciding upon some arbitrary ‘more’ to define an equally arbitrary ‘expertise’. Those on the sidelines, not directly privy to the exact nature of this ‘expertise’ ( clients, regulators, investors, etc… ) all have chosen to cheer as though at an actual sporting event, rather than making the rather pointed statement that the game, and its score, is increasingly a farther distance from reality every time you look.
<
p>Now you can make the claim that clients have the rather special right to be stupid and to throw their money at whatever fanciful scheme they like, and so they have. But, I contend, that far far fewer would do so, at the present pinch, if they listened to that little voice reminding them that this game makes no sense…
<
p>All of this is just to come to the word of advice: If your offspring elect to study ‘business’ or ‘finance’ at whatever college they are, or will be, attending… don’t pay for it. If they are quite set on a career in either ‘business’ or ‘finance’ I would recommend a course of study in sociology and psychology. They’ll better be equipped to see the sharks before they swarm…
when you said that AmberPaw’s values were “not consistent with reality”.
I’m hesitant to hire, I’m not sure where the economy is going to go. I can’t get a quote on my health insurance policies and my UI rates have tripled. I don’t want to hire someone and have to lay them off.
<
p>
If these were not tied so closely, you wouldn’t have that concern.
<
p>Oh my, no… It’s much much worse than that.
<
p>Obscene profits and the concomitant elitism aren’t, as I’ve seen, products of greed so much as products of incompetence and the shortsightedness that is wired into the system. Many money managers that I’ve met have a difficult time successfully picking their noses and, therefore, ought not to be left in charge of organizations of any size. That they are, in fact, left in charge leads them to seek outsized profits to cover both the stupid decisions they make and the shoddy way in which their companies are run (or not, as the case may be…) After all, if you end up paying someone a salary that they are not worth, well… If you can’t run a small business you ought not be put in charge of large sums of money. It’s a simple as that.
<
p>There are, in short, no ‘solid profits’ to be had and sometimes the quest for greater and greater profitis is the only way to ensure any profits and can lead to two things: A) every bet is riskier than the last and relies upon complex instruments to get there and 2) advantages are sought, however morally suspect they might become.. .
<
p>With respect to riskier and riskier bets: the only way to be sure of any profits whatsoever is to shoot for the moon. Of course, shooting for the moon, and occasionally getting there, is a wonderful boost to the ego…
<
p>On the other hand, with respect to seeking advantages, It is remarkably easy, if you know even a little about mathematics, to fleece those who, remarkably, don’t know very much about mathematics. This, of course, can also lead to an inflated sense of your own ego: if you begin to prey exclusively on the weak you’re going to end up seeing yourself as incredibly strong.
<
p>Or, put another way, just as Bernie Madoff had to fleece more and more sheep (running in place…) so to the modern day money manager, with wild swings deriving from riskier and riskier bets CANNOT rely upon ‘solid profits’ and must shoot for the moon with a steady supply of willing dupes.
<
p>And, frankly, I think Travaglini got out because the job was too too easy in good times and too too difficult at others.. The fact that he puts forward any other reason is sufficient indication of the fragility of his ego.
was not the total compensation he was receiving, but his excuse that he was leaving because he had a family to support and needed the bonus compensation he could get in the private sector to do so, as if $322K just didn’t stretch far enough. I see his decision as one driven by greed and jealousy, greed by wanting more than is necessary to support a good life, and jealousy of the salaries earned by those in the private sector doing similar jobs.
Just ask any fresh college grad today about entry level jobs … they don’t exist anymore, unless you’re from one of the ivy’s and get recruited to one of the top exclusive companies out there. Almost every employer out there are only looking for the candidate with a Master’s degree and 8-12 years experience in the field, and basically refusing to hire anything less than that expectation. Many of you in your 40’s and up have no idea how many young college grads have gone back to school after they obtained their Bachelors in once flourishing fields and decide to head into nursing programs or other medical imaging related fields because that is the only field hiring in mass right now. You will see countless stories in a few years of there being too many RN’s and not enough decent jobs for them.
<
p>We are at a point where employers are uncertain about our economic future and not looking to hire along with ever increasing unrealistic standards, jobs that continue to fly out of this country via outsourcing, and a college degree being worth the same as a high school diploma was 30 years ago, (in terms of setting yourself apart in applying for a job and qualifications) but costs almost 10X as much as it did 30 years ago.
<
p>Give it 5-10 years, and you will see 9-10% unemployment regarded as full employment just like how it’s been for nearly a decade over in Europe.
That has been my experience so far and I have been trying to get a job since September and come from one of the top ten schools in the country. I am incredibly fortunate that I qualified for significant financial aid as all the jobs I am looking at range from 30-50k and all want even more advanced degrees and prior experience. How can anyone get prior experience if they won’t let anyone new through the door?
<
p>What else are my options? Part of me wants to go to law school but that market is saturated, ditto getting my public admin MA. There is always the foreign service which tried to recruit me at one time, but I really want to stay in the US and my personal life (a very serious gf) prevents me from overseas travel for the time being anyway. It just sucks right now and I wish the government cared about us.
Folks who went to law school did not, at one point, expect “jobs”. Abraham Lincoln hung up a shingle, and one client at a time, built a practice (including lucratively representing railroads). I have been an attorney in this state since 1985 without having a “job” – it is not an easy route, but I have maintained a middleclass income of between 60k – 100k depending on the year. In part, that is because the kind of law I ultimately choose was “people’s problems law”, mostly family law but also child welfare law, and I do more than my share of pro bono (that means unpaid) work, according to my spouse.
<
p>Doing the practice of law this way has allowed me to remain true to my ethical standards, and to fight for people who truly need advocacy.
<
p>If you really want to go to law school, the best way to do it is to get a 1 year paralegal certificate and earn $18
$50 an hour or more, and avoid law school debt and then just hang out your shingle, with or without a small business loan and job creation credits and DO IT. I know that is scary and takes some real planningbut plenty of attorneys have done that.<
p>The vast majority of attorneys are either self employed solos or in 1-3 person firms.
<
p>I did clerk for both a judge and a major law firm in Michigan, and choose the freedom of solo practice becaue of what I saw and learned in both those environments. My boss (me) doesn’t provide paid vacation or sick time, but I am at peace with myself over my path.
<
p>I am well aware that first year associates in big firms start at twice the best income I have ever earned – or more – despite my 17 reported decisions and the reality that I writing my 136th brief this weekend.
<
p>But then, in this country we value and financially reward those who control property far more than those who work with people, in any field of endeavor.
Those were not intentional.
You made the right decision. Running your own business can be very rewarding (not necessarily financially) but you are on the line for the performance of the firm. I like that I always saw my kids off to school and almost never missed a school function. The trade off is never taking long vacations, phone calls at 1.00am, being the last paid, and having staff essentially becoming family members.
<
p>Anecdotally but I do business with a fair number of firms formed during the great depression – I’m thinking they were formed because the owners couldn’t find a job.
<
p>
This is extraordinarily good advice. The Sallie Mae payments are option limiting in the extreme.
I have been trying to apply to paralegal positions out here with no success thus far. I would much rather be in private practice, go into academia, or work for an organization I respect than be a corporate drone. My sister in law did that and it made her miserable. I am the type that would rather work for myself.
Then they tell me I’m overqualified, which I’m trying to figure how happened since I feel like I’ve never had steady work.
<
p>As someone with a Master’s degree and way more than 12 years experience, I’ve repeatedly been told: “We’re looking for entry-level people for our company (or consulting firm)whom we can then promote from within. With you’re experience, you are going to want an upper-level position. We’re not looking outside the company for that.”
<
p>I admit that I don’t want an entry-level position, but I don’t necessarily want an upper-level position either. I’d be satisfied with mid-level opportunities.
<
p>So, don’t automatically assume the search is any easier for people with experience.
I’ve donesome reading on it, saying someone is overqualified is a new suggested “nice” way of telling a candidate they will going elsewhere in their search. I’ve got that back too a few times when I clearly know its not the case.
Well maybe its a Chicago v Boston thing or I haven’t been looking at the right positions. Maybe we should switch applications.
out looking for a job.
<
p>I make about one-fifth of what David Whelan makes, but I’m happy with my job and have jobe security with 18 years in teaching.
<
p>Demand fluctuates in teaching too. Given the state budget over the next two years, we’re looking at cuts. I just hired a teacher for my department. All of the finalists had several years of teaching under their belt.
Wow! That’s some jobless recovery we have going.
If he is as good at what he does as he intimates then why not stay here and do the private sector thing?