I have a confession to make: I've been cavorting with Wall Street Bankers.
I’m in a fantasy baseball league, in fact, that’s chock full of Wall Street Bankers. And once, several years ago, I was interviewed by some Wall Street Bankers for a Wall Street hedge fund job. They didn’t end up offering me this position (and actually, the job was in Connecticut), but they did take me to a Yankees game and a nice Italian meal.
More alarmingly, my best friend from college is a former Wall Street Banker. This friend, whom I’ll identify only by the pseudonym Vijay, worked as an analyst for Salomon Smith Barney for several years in New York City, although he’s since moved on to private equity and then gone back to business school.
From looking at him, you wouldn’t know that Vijay was a Wall Street Banker. He’s an unassuming guy, into indie rock and cheap beer. He doesn’t eat meat and his politics are fairly liberal, although slightly to the right of mine.
While employed on Wall Street, Vijay routinely worked in excess of 100 hours a week. His apartment in the Financial District, a few blocks away from Ground Zero, consisted of three video gaming consoles, four alarm clocks, and a mattress; he was virtually never home, and so he had little need for anything else. I remember one occasion, when I was visiting my sister in New York City and we were attempting to drink cheap beer with Vijay, when he received a message on his Blackberry and abruptly had to dart off to Kinko’s at 11:30 on Sunday evening to fax a document to a client. I thought this was Extremely Uncool –- my sister and I still talk about the “Kinko’s Incident” -- but Vijay is nothing if not hard-working.
Vijay is a rather inconspicuous consumer, however, still driving the same beat-up Honda Civic that we used to take on midnight runs to Taco & Burrito Palace while in college. Although he was once something of a cheapskate, he has since become generous to a fault: the cheap beer is usually on him. While working in private equity, Vijay took time out of his day to teach inner-city high schoolers about finance and economics, and took a year off in between jobs to see his family and volunteer for the Red Cross in India.
Vijay has his vices -- if he didn't, he wouldn't be my friend -- and his prejudices -- an irrational disdain for the borough of Brooklyn, for instance. But it is hard for me, when I read blanket assertions that Wall Street businesspeople are “greedy, selfish and utterly immoral”, not to think of Vijay, who is not really any of those things. True, Vijay is perhaps slightly more motivated by financial considerations than I am (but only slightly so). He attributes this to his Indian-American upbringing, which emphasizes the idea that money is hard to make, and so you do so when you can, and then use it to provide generously for your family and friends. This is his version of the American Dream, which is slightly different from mine, and is probably slightly different from yours, but not something I can find great fault with.
It is quite possible to believe each of the following things -- that the tax code is not as progressive as it ought to be; that high-level executives at major companies make, on average, more than they ultimately generate in profits for their shareholders; that the working class have too little influence over American politics and the upper class too much, and that banks and other financial institutions are inadequately regulated -– without having to demonize the people who work on Wall Street, the vast majority of whom are like Vijay: hard-working and ethical folks, maybe a little money-obsessed, but most of whom voted in November for a President who vowed to raise their taxes.
In our private lives, we all have the right to determine whom we do and do not choose to associate with; personally, I’ve found that there’s relatively little correlation between someone’s occupation and their character. But these sorts of judgments do not, in my view, have a place in infringing upon public policy, any more than judgments about race, religion, gender or sexual orientation do. The Supreme Court has sometimes interpreted the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence to refer to the right to pursue the vocation of one’s choosing without undue interference. If we want to tax the rich more, let’s tax the rich more, but let’s not single out individuals in particular occupations or who work for particular companies: let’s tax millionaire bankers and millionaire baseball players, millionaire hedge fund managers and millionaire dentists. If we want to be more vigilant about white-collar crime, let’s be so –- in fact, let’s throw away the lock and key, and treat white-collar criminals every bit as harshly as do blue-collar criminals. But let’s not presume that anyone who works in a particular occupation is engaged in criminal conduct.
And as for the notion that Wall Street Bankers are greedy -- your damned right they're greedy, if by greed you mean wanting to maximize profits for themselves and/or their firms. Most of us are greedy, within reasonable limits, when it comes to our professional lives; less so, hopefully, in our personal ones. I'm borrowing someone else's punchline, but we should be no more surprised by the presence of greed than we are by the presence of gravity. Where that greed has pernicious effects, we should regulate around it, building stronger structures to withstand its impact. But the financial crisis reflects, as I have written, a market failure rather than a moral one.
3.25.2009
In Defense of Vijay, The Wall Street Banker
by Nate Silver @ 9:29 PM...see also bailout, political philosophy, taxes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

119 comments
Vijay sounds like an interesting guy, and I'll bet you're right that the vast majority of Wall Street workers are like him.
Still, there are some bad apples, and the bad apples there do spoil more than the whole barrel.
Good stuff, Nate. One of your emotional posts to date, there were shades of Sean in there.
I've been arguing much the same thing over the last couple of weeks. However, it is worth mentioning that most of the anger in here during the Week of Pitchforks wasn't directed at bankers per se, so much as the AIG guys who'd received the bonuses. I think most of us - even those of us who share your distaste for the 'Bonus Tax', feel that those particular bankers should ideally not get that money, and that particular bank has behaved immorally.
What happened Nate?
You used to be cool.
Well said, Nate. Thanks for the perspective.
This is the problem with systemic problems.
We are dealing with the problems caused by the environment of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each of which, I'm sure, is a beautiful human being.
Numbers are easier to analyze. No one rises to the defense of 7's character. Or says, "Some of my best friends are 14s."
Political and cultural analysis is much uglier. And more important.
Vijay ought to get behind Robert H. Frank's progressive consumption tax. The idea is that you tax consumption (income minus savings) instead of work (income). So rich dudes like Vijay can make all the money in the world (that's how you keep score in his game) without getting taxed to death.
On the flip side, people who spend a lot would get hammered with really high rates on consumption. The progressive part comes in with the brackets. The first $20,000 might be 0%, but spending over $1,000,000 might be 60%. (Who the hell needs to spend more than $1,000,000/year?) Better for society to use that capital for investments.
There's a lot more to it. Check out one of Frank's books ("Falling Behind" is good). A lot of people can't square "progressive" and "consumption tax" but if you check it out it'll make sense. It can be as progressive as you want it, depending on how you do the brackets.
Anyway, if you want to nail trust fund assholes (no income, negative savings), this is the tax system you want.
I don't think everyone was even upset at all of AIGFD either. I'm sure they have profitable outfits there that didn't get involved in the CDS's. I would go as far as saying that all the people involved in CDS's aren't necessarily responsible for what happened either. Aiming anger at the individual brokers would be akin to lashing out at a soldier because Iraq turned out to be an absolute mistake in the end. The frustration should have been directed at the management of the FD from the beginning imho.
Vijay sounds like an awesome dude. It'll be better for society if ambitious dudes like that are drawn to something useful, like engineering, instead of more bullshit finance. And if he really does prefer finance to engineering, then it'll be good if the folks who are in it for the cash go somewhere else.
I mean, we need some finance industry, but not nearly as much of it as we've had.
Interesting, part two. A little after-the-fact 'full disclosure' statement that certainly helps explain many recent Nate postings.
Better late than never, I guess.
One of the things I loved about this website was that it didn't the authors weren't as hardheaded and dead-set in their ideas. You guys were more receptive. Please don't get very emotional about stuff, or it'll start ruining the quality of your work.
Thanks Nate for putting a human face on the "greedy fat cats" on Wall Street. It helps quell all the somewhat (IMHO) misguided outrage you see.
wv: jourba - Someone else's sheep
Thanks Nate. I don't know if people who have never lived in New York really get it. These are just people doing their jobs. Maybe in moderately annoying blue button down and khakis uniforms, and maybe they make my favorite bar a little more crowded than I would like it to be, but it's not like they're crazy zombies. I think the bloodlust is disconcerting, especially among our elected officials. Have you seen the letter from the AIG guy? Pretty upsetting.
As someone who has worked in financial services and savings and loans I disagree with you. I don't know or particularly care about your friend Vijay, but I do care about how people regard this industry. For years when I worked in financial services and as a notary for loan companies I was exposed to a culture of greed that was sickening. While this greed may give you a shit eating grin it gives me contempt because greed in these industries are indifferent, these people don't care if they give you bad loans they don't care if they mislead you into bad rates or unnecesarry terms when you qualify for better and they do everything humanly possible to mislead you to make money off you and then forget about your problems as they move onto the next family. This attitude is not only tolerated it is promoted in every aspect of financial business that I have seen. So you can see your friend however it makes you feel, but you don't how he has acted in his transactions and who he may have lied to, misled, or taken advantage of. So you'll have to excuse me if I label this post as one giant self serving piece of crap. Come back to me when you've actually been involved in this industry behind closed doors, and aren't spouting some internet sob story about how great and moral and generous the people in financial services are.
well said, Nate.
On a side note does this post make anyone think of Richard Nixons "Checkers" speech. Nate is basically standing up and saying "I won't let you attack bankers, because my friend Vijay is a banker and he is a good man who is generous and hard working, and I will not let you argue against the bankers and financial service indutries and make a mockery of Vijay and his integrity!" all the while none of us actually care about Vijay or those who can't be identified as part of the problem. This entire post is basically one giant equivocating strawman.
Your should become involved in politics Nate, you would fit right in.
Nate, your point about not damning all members of an entire profession is well taken. However, it simply doesn't wash to me that there has been no moral failure. There have actually been several moral failures, including:
(1) The lifting of regulations and the refusal to enforce the remaining ones. A further extension of this is that the FTC refused to investigate Madoff after _10 years_ of tips.
(2) The recklessness of uncontrolled trading of assets of no inherent value, on credit.
(3) The suckering of individuals on "free" credit, sometimes to the extent of fraudulent practices by mortgagers and credit card companies.
(4) The recklessness of individuals who should have realized they lacked sufficient income or assets to be able to repay loans.
Quite obviously, the moral failures go way beyond Wall St. But Wall St. contains professionals who are allegedly experts and should have known they were engaging in recklessness amounting to malpractice in trading default credit slips, as AIG did.
Now, did all stockbrokers engage in such malpractices? No, clearly not. And, therefore, you are right that we shouldn't damn the entire profession.
But the idea that "the market," as some kind of fictional impersonal entity, is the only "thing" at fault in this economic collapse, is a cop-out, and you can and should do better.
I've recently been teaching my students about the revolution in Indonesia in the 1990s. I mentioned that as long as the economy expanded there, people were willing to resign themselves to muttering under their breath about all the corruption, but when the economic crisis came, it brought revolution that removed the cancer of military dictatorship from their body politic.
Here, we face nothing like the daily-life corruption everyone had thrown in their faces in Indonesia, but it's also clear that when the downturn came, all the corrupt, fraudulent shit floated to the surface. And one of the reasons I think it sucks that core establishment people like Geithner were put in charge of financial policy is that while we surely don't need a violent revolution here, we do need for the people who brought about the crisis - notably including Geithner, God help us - to be forced out and replaced by non-corrupt people who will do whatever head-knocking is necessary in order to reinstitute regulations, nationalize as needed, restructure, and clean out the Augean stables that are smelling up the entire world today.
I'd be curious to see what kinds of jobs some of the negative commenters have.
The purpose of business is to make a profit. If you think that is greedy or you have a problem with that you are being incredibly nieve.
Welcome to the real world.
P.S. this is a common stereotype that many people on the right have of people on the left. Remember stereotypes exist because they are true in a decent amount of cases.
I just don't want to be on the hook for these guys' bonuses. They work for companies that wrecked the economy, and now they're begging for help. I don't care if these individuals didn't make the decisions that ruined the companies. Millions of Americans have taken pay cuts or lost their bonuses, but they are not expecting the rest of us to cover it like the whiny bitches on Wall St., who also do not appear to be above attempting to blackmail the country.
Going to have to disagree with you to some extent on this one. I'm a first generation American as well, and a hard-working ethic was instilled into me in a way that sounds similar to Vijay's. But I recognized at some point along the way that working hard actually isn't enough, and that we all must make moral choices about what we choose to do. I wouldn't judge a person entirely by their chosen career but it certainly is a major criterion, especially for the educationally privileged (which I can guess Vijay is). As a somewhat simplistic example, this is why I have great respect for Barack Obama, who went in the less popular direction of community work after graduating Harvard Law School, unlike most of his big-firm pursuing classmates. And yes, for this I consider him a more moral person than the average Harvard Law graduate (this doesn't imply I find the average Harvard Law grad *immoral*, just *less* moral than someone like Obama -- when considering only this factor).
One more point. I agree with you that this is a market failure, but we *must* address the moral failures that led to this market failure. These moral failures mostly took place within the political process, and yes, much of it was caused by negligence and ignorance rather than malice. Nevertheless, it is a moral failure that we are all responsible for.
Likewise, Vijay might be the kind of guy I call a friend (and I have friends like him), and he may not have known the negative consequences of his chosen career path, but I think he's ultimately
morally responsible for his choice.
As a liberal lawyer, I claim blame for my own kind.
Vijay and his colleagues work in a system capable of brilliance, of wildness, of abuse, and of collapse.
In an earlier generation, lawyers of the middle left knew that and built us the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and an overall approach to that channeled capitalism enough to let it bloom. Enough to let folks with limited information save and invest without catstrophic risk. Enough to generate, in the great Cuomo phrase "the greatest sustained prosperity in the history of the known universe."
In my generation, though, we thought liberalism was all equality and freedom (which is part of the truth, but not enough). We let the structures go. I saw it happening in law school, and I didn't step up to the big economics: I went for the comparatively small stuff of public education. I look now at reports that no one could get the SEC to move on Madoff, that Geithner can't staff up, that no one can figure out how to unravel the toxic crap, and I know my kind failed an important opportunity.
We failed. My generation of liberal lawyers. If we'd held to our New Deal heritage, our parents would be far more secure in retirement and our children would inheriting a sturdier world.
Nate, it's not just markets. It's morals about markets, and my kind should have been guarding those morals for decades.
Umm. I'm sure Vijay's a great guy, but I'm a grad student in New York. So, as I'm sure you know, I work nearly 100 hours a week and fax whatever whenever for 25K a year. Are you saying I'm not smart? That I don't work hard?
I drink cheap beer and don't have car, not because of my values, but because I don't have a freaking choice. Today they raised the subway fare by 50 cents a ride, eating up my whole tax break. I have no problem with Vijay's life choices, but I'm certainly not going to cry for him.
And as for the notion that Wall Street Bankers are greedy -- your damned right they're greedy, if by greed you mean wanting to maximize profits for themselves and/or their firms.
I think the difference is that when you effectively make money out of thin air, it seems almost criminal. Meanwhile, someone who works hard or is an entrepreneur seem perfectly legitimate. Even if both are greedy.
Usury is making money off of money and has for millenia been a very disliked activity.
Nate,
THANK YOU. I, too, am friends with a couple Wall Street Bankers, and have found them to be just as human as those of us in less profitable professions. Indeed, I know a couple who worked on Wall Street for a couple years specifically so that they could afford to spend the rest of their lives doing poorly paid work. If people have a problem with "Wall Street", they should ask Congress to impose tough, comprehensive regulation on the institutions that these folks work for. An excise tax won't stop the next panic -- good regulation can.
Wow, does this post so miss the mark on public sentiment. Nobody I know, and I am lower-middle class at best, wants to punish all bankers through excessive taxation or otherwise.
All they (we) are saying is that if you work for a company that accepts billions in government money to stay afloat, maybe a short-term loss in compensation is just a fact of life.
When my factory closed down ten years ago, I got a my final paycheck ($313) and was shown the door. Without the government bailout, this is what would have happened to the Vijay's of the world.
Instead, they suffer for a few months, their company (or industry) stays alive, and they live to rake in cash at a great job in the near future.
There is a big difference in drinking cheap beer because you want to and drinking cheap beer because you have to.
I have read the blogs by amateurs and those who should no better, who are guilty of what you're saying - though honestly I haven't seen it as much as you're implying.
But as much as they refuse to acknowledge it, half the blogosphere engages the same bitterness industry that Fox so dominates. In any honest, open pool of ideas, there needs to be a push-back against the kind of young-ish middle class faux-populism that makes so ambivalent our national discourse.
But against the logically and morally questionable tactic of glowering at a straw-man version of your friend Vijay, I feel like I must weigh gradually decreasing chances of getting true reform of the financial industry, infrastructure investment, universal health care, alternative energy investment, cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, concentration on Afghanistan, another look at pensions, a more progressive tax code with more well-designed gradients, and all the rest.
Can you possibly blame me if I just want - out of something I realize and admit is self-interested - to tell your friend to buck up and ignore the manufactured outrage? *Especially* since the only way those chances are going to increase is if Congressional Democrats grow a spine?
Take a look at the bipartisan gerrymander in California, whose state Democratic Party is currently one of the biggest influence blocs there is, asides from the Obama Administration itself. Honorable exceptions like Hilda Solis aside, tell me how likely you think it is that a Congress led by *that* will grow a spine, and perhaps you'll be more sympathetic to why I go along with the bitterness game, if it gets Congress to get out of Obama's way.
Sorry, Vijay. I'd buy you a beer if I knew you. Don't worry though - one of my socioeconomic demographics will probably be thrown under the bus as well, eventually.
This insane desire to maximize profits and growth is what brought us here.
It is wrong, pointless and dangerous.
As for people with MBA's or BA's in Business, I have yet to meet an intelligent one.
There is a reason they get degrees in business and it has everything to do with the fact it is effortless.
I'd be curious to see what kinds of jobs some of the negative commenters have.
The purpose of business is to make a profit. If you think that is greedy or you have a problem with that you are being incredibly nieve.
Being greedy is wrong. Trying to be profitable is different than greed. Greed comes when you try to get as much as you can and fuck everyone else.
It is not surprising that so many can't see the difference.
As for me BS Computer Science, working in network security and on a MS in computer science.
Nate,
Your post was very interesting and as an Indian guy I can peripherally relate to Vijay. The outrage is not about Vijay but his manager. I think making employees from a practically bankrupt corporation millionaires overnight is unquestionably ridiculous. For this we need to hold the Managers and their Managers accountable.
My second point is...It indeed is possible to hold liberal notions without vilifying people. It is not so much that people in Wall street are greedy. It is that sometimes the Wall streeter's view is so skewed that they start arguing that $250,000 in Manhattan, NY is at best upper middle class. My point is move to Manhattan, KS and you can live well with <$50,000. It is sad that people in this field are not able to see beyond the world they inhabit.
Is it simply that we have come to value individualism so much that we forget our fellow citizens who sleep under the bridge on cold winter day?
Going to have to disagree with you to some extent on this one. I'm a first generation American as well, and a hard-working ethic was instilled into me in a way that sounds similar to Vijay's. But I recognized at some point along the way that working hard actually isn't enough, and that we all must make moral choices about what we choose to do. I wouldn't judge a person entirely by their chosen career but it certainly is a major criterion, especially for the educationally privileged (which I can guess Vijay is). As a somewhat simplistic example, this is why I have great respect for Barack Obama, who went in the less popular direction of community work after graduating Harvard Law School, unlike most of his big-firm pursuing classmates. And yes, for this I consider him a more moral person than the average Harvard Law graduate (this doesn't imply I find the average Harvard Law grad *immoral*, just *less* moral than someone like Obama -- when considering only this factor).
Very well said. Where you work and what you do is a moral decision.
I would have thought that the idea of claiming it is only a job and I am following orders would not be acceptable anymore but sadly, it is.
Nate,
Great post: in my work with execs I remind folks that there are a lot of 80-20 rules that are very helpful. The two tricks are; there is 80, and there is 20, and 2) don't confuse the group in the 20 with people - like Vijay - in the 80.
Best,
J. Mike
http://www.backwest.com
http://backwest.com/wordpress.backwest.com/
Nate,
Good post, but for most of us it's not apparent that the money changers in the Wall St. temple are doing anything useful. Generating profits for shareholders and investors doesn't necessarily translate into real productive economic activity. It's easy to grasp the importance of farming or building houses or starting a company or inventing something. Those are activities that create real wealth. What happens on Wall St. seems to be divorced from the larger economy, as though it's an abstract game played by a bunch of people for their own benefit. What we have seen in recent years is the movement of capital from the working class to the money hustlers, and if there is any trickle-down, it sure isn't apparent to me. So your pal Vijay might be an OK guy, but he belongs to a class of people that has done more harm than good in recent years to society at large.
The fundamental problem here is that the money changers have lost sight of their proper role as one of the component parts of society-- they have taken the Ayn Rand message to its extreme, and look at the results.
Thanks Nate. As usual, your views are akin to my own. And you express them much more eloquently than I possibly could.
The important point, it seems to me, is that Vijay left Wall Street, so how can he serve as an example of the typical Wall Streeter? IMO Vijay decided that working 100 hours a week on (apparently) little pay at Goldman, then transfering to an (apparently) equally unhappy situation at a hedge fund, was not for him, which suggests he's quite the opposite of the typical Streeter.
wv brasegm: A scheme to relieve a girl of her brassiere.
Yawn.
The left insists on demogagueing Republicans as the party of Wall Street, yet the fact are quite different. Nate, even acknowledged this in his post, the typical Wall Street person is a liberal, not a Republican.
This hatred of Wall Street has been spewed by the far left for decades, and it is sickening and it has to stop. The left needs to drop their destructive tactics of street theater and hatred before they rip apart this country.
Well, I knew a lot of guys who were in, or were heading for, finance jobs, mostly i-bankers. They were okay on their own, but real a-holes when in a bunch. My sense was that this was how the culture worked, encouraging each individual, who was maybe just generically greedy on his own, to gas up on testosterone and competition when in a group and act dumb both professionally and socially. It seems like there's a positive feedback mechanism here, were individuals may each be just 5% self-serving or greedy, but when you put a bunch together in a competitive situation, that 5% goes to 500%.
Note, though, that this doesn't take deep sociology to see: hanging out with them on their own turf made it pretty obvious. Vijay or whoever is responsible for his actions, insofar as he could have decided to take a job that added to society rather than just shuffling cash for profit. I did it (I turned down my offer for a more honorable job), and others here did it. He may be a nice guy, but we're not mad at wall street (primarily) because they are selfish pigs; we're mad because they f*cked up our country and are still pushing to cling to the old system.
@Nate:
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of that post - obviously occupation is not a sufficient description of a person's morals or personality, so it isn't really a surprise for anyone when you show us your Good Wall Street Banker (who, I can't resist pointing out, is through some completely independent coincidence no longer a banker).
"Most of us are greedy, within reasonable limits"
But this seems to glide past the crux of the current animosity for Wall Street Bankers: that as a group they're perceived as unreasonably greedy and selfish, and taking unethical steps to satisfy that greed at the expense of everyone else. Whether the accusation is true or not, saying that we're all a little greedy doesn't really address it.
I worked on Wall Street fifteen years, comm and tech not finance. People were no different.
What slipped is cultural norms. Just saw Geoghegan on Democracy Now. Yeah, the end of usury tilted the playing field from manufacturing to finance. It also removed the basic reminder that borrowers are humans. The rage at Wall St. is really rage about everyone else not being taken into account. Indebting people as a national economic strategy proves to be slavery lite.
Oh, and greed is a centrifugal force. Love is the comparable for gravity, not greed.
Based on what little description of his job is given, that "analyst" job sound more like an executive's "gopher".
Is he really one of the people getting million dollar bonuses?
I do not believe the government is singling out Wall Street bankers with the 90% tax, because these bankers are being paid out of the US treasury and not private profits. In any normal circumstance, any corporation should be able to pay its employees and executives whatever it deems fit even if the rest of us think its an outrageous sum of money. In those circumstances, the government has no right to single out Wall street bankers. But AIG is owned 80% by the US government now and the rest of the financial industry that received $5 Billion or more in TARP funds is, in some respects at least, a public-private partnership. The government has the right to regulate the compensation, even through taxes if it must, for its employees when a loose cannon CEO pays out extravagant bonuses to the dismay of the rest of the government. Even though Liddy received at least tacit approval from Geithner, Geithner serves at the luxury of the President and the American people. Congress and the President have an ethical duty to act on the concerns of the American people and a failure to do so would be a moral failure of this administration. Wall Street is not to blame for the bonuses, the US government is for failing in their duty to act and regulate the financial industry that they have taken over.
I think there is a moral issue here, but it's less about individuals and more about institutions and professional values:
"The discussion about the 'value' of the MBA always seems to end -- no matter where it starts and no matter what nuances are discussed by Pfeffer and others -- with a focus on how much money it puts (or doesn't put) in the recipient's pocket.
"There is remarkably little conversation about whether it teaches people to do a better job of helping and serving clients, employees, or anyone else. Yet sociologists will tell you that a defining feature of a profession is that members are trained and socialized to put their client's interests AHEAD of their own. That is what lawyers and doctors promise to do before they start to practice, for example."
- Bob Sutton, Why Management is Not a Profession
Hard work is not enough. There are many exceptions, but the finance industry, as a whole, lacks professional values that are a counterweight to greed, and this prevented them from taking collective action before this crisis to head it off.
I had a long rant and realized it wasn't focused enough. My comment boiled down to that many in the finance world definitely crossed moral lines when "maximizing profits" meant throwing money at very risky bets because the manager would make tons of money off the ones that worked. There is plenty of blame for those that built this system and those that ignored the impending crash, but those that abused it made a moral judgement to do so. There were many systemic and moral failings that lead to this economic crisis.
LOL...yeah, you've been cavorting with Wall St. bankers. It was kind of obvious when you defended them like a mama bear protecting her cubs. I liked how you tried to blame everyone but them for the financial crisis.
The impersonal market is clearly and intentionally designed with the intent of everybody being "rationally" greedy. The structure of investments makes helping the stockholder a worthy moral goal.
The concept of investing is very useful because it allows people to take bigger financial risks with less personal risk. That is good for the economy. There just needs to be regulation to keep things stable. Don't blame Wall Street; it's just doing its job. The government just needs to do *its* job.
In other news, I do not like the concept of a consumption tax. Spending money on real goods and services is what causes real economic growth. Buying pieces of paper that will give you more money in the future does not really do that.
If we want to abolish the income tax, we should completely make up the lost money with a straight-up greenhouse gas tax.
let's not single out individuals in particular occupations or who work for particular companies
I don't think anyone was suggesting that, not even in the self-evidently bad House bill, which was about jacking up taxes on people who work for companies that receive government money.
I don't deny that there are plenty of people who comment on blogs calling for bankers' heads, but Nate, you've provided one link... which is broken, poetically enough. This is I believe what Duncan Black called the "Some Guy With a Sign" argument.
I think what people are actually angry about is not that all bankers are criminal, but the culture of Wall Street is destructive, whether or not it's populated by nice people who think what they're doing is okay.
There's a sense, correct or not, that Wall Street bankers get rich mostly because they're closest to streams of money moving around at their greatest intensities - that their profits are derived not from the creation of wealth but their proximity to that wealth.
And when I read about arbitrage specialists who make money in moment-to-moment market currency fluctuations, I don't think it's evil - it's legal, and it's it's a clever new mousetrap - it just seems like a preposterous way to earn millions of dollars.
All of which is to say: I think the issues are much greater than "all bankers are evil"/"no, most of them aren't." Insofar as people understand high finance, which is not very far, they seem to think that a system that rewards the maintenance and transfer of wealth (responsibly or not) so much greater than the creation of it is a busted system.
So people somewhat naturally blame the people who are the cogs in that system. It may be an error, but it's not a completely irrational one to make.
PS: I wouldn't dismiss moral or ethical codes so quickly. One thing that seems to be missing in the financial system, in the financial culture, right now is a sense of stewardship.
That might set off alarm bells for market purists, but other professions have shared ethical codes; doctors are the best example. It's not a failsafe, but it helps, from my observation. Watch any professional debate over medical ethics and the power of the Hippocratic Oath is evident. It might sound silly to put so much faith in some old words, but perhaps the finance industry needs a version of "first do no harm."
(PSx2: It did just occur to me that the downside of ethical codes is that it can encourage excessive trust in certain professions - which is why a couple of the most active serial killers were doctors. Check the story of Michael Swango and how he traded on the inherent trust of the profession, for instance.)
Explains why you were such an apologist.
I like you Nate. I might even like Vijay, he sounds like a hard worker whose love of being able to do good things with money has blinded him to what it costs for him to get that money. So I'm in agreement with Matt Taibbi, from Rolling Stone who said,
"The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.
"But wait a minute," you say to them. "No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?"
But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.
Good luck with that, America. And enjoy tax season."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
Oh Nate. It's unlike a stat guy to have an exclusively anecdotal post. And it's disappointing. If I wanted to read about how bankers are good guys because "I have a friend who's a banker," then I'd visit conservative blogs, who trade in such unsupported drivel. Yes, Nate, I too know a few kind-hearted bankers. But in my experience, the majority are money-hungry jerks. This statement, like your own, proves nothing more than that I can draw broad conclusions from tiny samples.
I sincerely doubt that the "vast majority" of bankers are vegetarians who teach inner-city high schoolers. And, true or not, I certainly won't reach that conclusion because you know one person who fits into that category.
Thanks.
It's not the people or their character who offend me, its the presumption people of that class often make - that they work harder than everyone else, or that poor people do not work as hard. I know from firsthand experience that poor people work harder than rich people do.
Lets be honest. We didn't go to college to work harder, we went to college to work less hard, or to ensure that we'll be paid much more for the same hard work than someone else who didn't go to college. And let's also be honest - most of us who went to college (myself included) got a lot of help from our parents.
We knew, from the time we were children, that all we had to do was make a decent effort to complete the schoolwork put in front of us, and we'd be on track to get into college and go and coast comfortably into white-collar jobs that pay the same as what our parents made. We can even comfortably coast to a higher income if we choose the right major or profession.
But we'll still entertain the myth that we "worked hard" to get where we are.
The hardest work I've ever done in my life was canvassing door to door with the Service Employees Union with low-income people who said it was the easiest job of their lives. The easiest job I ever had was in an office.
Wow. Class envy much, guys? Fine, demonize the profession, but the people are no worse than you or me (and yes, I know a Vijay or two - one is even south Asian). Still I think Nate's appeal misses the bigger picture.
There are always going to be some people who really really like money. That isn't bad. We have cars, industrialization 'n junk because making money caused Henry Ford to cream his pants. Ford was a douche too - he paid his employees extra in part so he could spy on them (and he was a crappy father). But I don't care because we gots cars.
In the Soviet Union, guys like Henry Ford would have weaseled their way into the politburo upper echelon. In Rome guys like Henry Ford got the most slaves. Greedy people work the system, wherever they are. The beauty of our economic system - when we get it right - is that we can get assholes to work hard so we get cheap cars.
Bankers, venture capitalists and so on are not an irrelevant part of our economy. They do something governments are bad at: they build the future. They sort through the virgin virtuosos of Silicon Valley and decide who to back. They put the assets of rich people to work - assets that historically would be used as swimming pools (yes, everything I know about the upper classes is based on Scrooge McDuck).
We screwed up. We should have remembered that they don't care about the Internet, they care about money. We should have remembered that when they offered to sell us magic beans, whose value was based on a +1 vorpal sword and the hope diamond, whose value isn't really known but if I buy it I'll be rich... We let them sell it, and the hope diamond turned out to be a geode... and then we paid them again for the pleasure of having been screwed hard.
The moral of the story... Make greedy investors sell us cars and the Internet again. Reassure the markets that while the government will always take action to respond to economic downturns, the worst offenders will suffer.
Ola buddies,
Nice post Sir Nate.
check and balance,share the wealth,this is what people need.
Do not let the few fool the most.
btw,sadly,this is NOT the way to go there:
More companies cut or end 401(k) plan matches.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2009-03-25-company-match-retirement_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
good night.
oh Nate,just curious:
"...but they did take me to a Yankees game and a nice Italian meal..."
What did you eat ?
:)
For the win:
FM Sound said...
Wow, does this post so miss the mark on public sentiment. Nobody I know, and I am lower-middle class at best, wants to punish all bankers through excessive taxation or otherwise.
All they (we) are saying is that if you work for a company that accepts billions in government money to stay afloat, maybe a short-term loss in compensation is just a fact of life.
March 25, 2009 10:03 PM
Just for laughs, I watched a few segments of CNBC this morning, and they couldn't shut up about how We Don't Get It: People have a right to be paid for their labors, goldarnit!
No kidding. But no one is seriously suggesting bankers shouldn't be paid if they show up for work. It's government-financed bonuses for employees at zombie banks and brokers that is offensive. We're not talking about salaries in return for a month's honest work at a bank. What we are talking about are the hacks who mismanaged assets at now-failing companies.
These are the people who may or may not enjoy cheap beer and long walks on the beach who are nevertheless scum for demanding, accepting or paying out bonuses to fellow undeserving scum (who may or may not mentor youth at inner-city high schools).
It doesn't matter if they mismanaged those assets out of greed (since, as you say, greed is good) or recklessness or innocent stupidity. These can still be good people, whatever that means. But when they start dishing out and accepting bonuses their companies can't afford and don't deserve — that's indefensible, destructive greed. And taking that money from goverment bailouts goes far beyond the pale.
I'm a big fan, Nate, but this post made no sense at all. Bankers are people too? Thanks for clueing me in.
hosertohoosier said...
March 26, 2009 2:40 AM
**********
Sir,
You don't have a f*ing cloue about what real life is.
For me the problem is not with the personal ethics of all the Vijays on Wall Street, so much as the fact that there are in fact so many of them.
If he is, in fact, as hard-working and smart and talented as you say (and I personally also know other finance types who answer to that description), then the real scandal is that he, and so many of his peers, are on Wall Street at all, instead of in engineering and science and teaching and many other more socially valuable pursuits.
That's the source of my disappointment in how things have worked out in the U.S. The market fetishism that undergirds our culture has created a set of incentives that drains talent away from where we need it to go, and channels it instead to the essentially parasitic activity of these finance guys.
I'm sure Vijay is a fine fellow. So are many of his peers. But they are in the wrong place. Our country is paying a high price for this misallocation of talent, and will in all likelihood continue to pay that price for the forseeable future.
The three video gaming consoles are the tipoff. Vijay means "Victory", and Vijay's nothing if not a competitor. I see his job as another sort of video game where the goal is to get the numbers on your computer screen to get bigger as fast as possible.
It's nice to have people like that around. When something nerdy and technical needs doing, the Vijays of the world are there to do it. But to some extent they're always playing a game, and if the public isn't careful, the Vijay's end up playing against them.
Either a) it's not a game and Vijay needs to grow some principles, or b) it is a game and Vijay's play needs to be more closely refereed. Or maybe both should happen, so if Vijay thinks of a way to circumvent a rule, he doesn't do it, realizes that it violates the spirit of the rule, and discloses the loophole.
If finance is a game, it should be golf, not Grand Theft Auto. Let's expect bankers to be gentlemen, and penalize the living shit out of them when they aren't.
Vijay...golf?
This is probably the most interesting comment thread in a while here, because Mr. Silver has actually laid out a proposition--that people should not be demonized for their choice of occupation, even if it puts them into a field associated with "greed"--and about half the people here are actually trying to pose cogent arguments against him.
The notion of finance as "parasitic" goes back centuries, and I suppose we could have expected that notion to come back with a vengeance in the midst of a financial crisis. I think to the Confucian hierarchy in the Chinese past, which placed merchants at the bottom. I think this is misguided, though. I don't believe that finance is parasitic. A working finance system lubricates the economy's gears--it provides capital for good ideas and incentives for success. It also distributes excess savings more optimally. The fact that the finance system just had a once-in-a-century collapse does not discredit the notion or value of finance on the whole.
I am sympathetic to the notion that publicly-supported enterprises should have salary caps, but why stop at Wall Street? Why not cap the earnings on university presidents? More critically, getting to the heart of the AIG scandal, these things should be specified clearly before implementation. Government-sanctioned arbitrary standards and ex post facto legislation based on rage is far, far worse than a few people being paid more than they have earned.
Mr. Silver: keep up the good work!
This is the kind of apologia one used to hear in defense of the next-door neighbors who worked at CIA.
Market failure, not moral? "Stop me before I kill again!"
I sympathize with this defense. I also sympathize with the defense of drug dealers, casinos, and other such occupations.
Most people do. Thats why you get the movies with positive views on thieves, gangsters, and the like. I am sure individually most of them are charming people.
Here's where I disagree. We definitely should tax and restrict some occupations more. And if we feel it is necessary we should criminalize their conduct. And if it is true we should treat them like criminals.
The criminalization of market failures is essential to the working of any modern society. Treating people who exploit those failures as criminals is necessary as well.
I am sure Vijay is a nice guy. But I am also pretty sure he was engaged in conduct that I would consider criminal and immoral.
If he had been born in different circumstances he would probably be a drug dealer or a gangster.
The reason why we need laws is to keep people like Vijay in check.
When you say something like "most of whom voted for a President who vowed to raise their taxes," do you have anything at all to back that up? This is FiveThirtyEight, where (are supposed to) rule. What makes you say that "most" financial workers voted for Barack Obama? Because most of the ones you know did?
Maybe you have the numbers and/or have shown them before and I just have never seen them, but this seems remarkably unlike you.
I am sympathetic to the notion that publicly-supported enterprises should have salary caps, but why stop at Wall Street? Why not cap the earnings on university presidents?
Agreed. Any university that accepts $5 billion in additional funding after approaching bankruptcy should then require that no bonuses be paid to any employee earning more than $250K per year.
The problem for your argument is that this scenario doesn't happen in the real world. And the unlikelihood of it ever happening at a university actually underscores the depths of failure that were reached by these so-called financial wizards.
wow must totally disagree with your entire post Nate! I was married to a Bear Stearns asshole. I gotta tell you, greed IS the name of the game on Wall Street, catastrophic, overwhelming greed that overrules every single other possible motivation. People who work on Wall Street are immoral, unethical and in a word, evil. Call it a blanket condemnation if you will but it's the truth. They give a shit about nothing except their own personal enrichment. Every single person I knew on Wall Street was a lying, cheating, thieving, whoring, coke-snorting, Johnny Walker-swilling, ciggie-butt smoking piece of pure human garbage. Sure, they had MBAs, and guess what? They were stupid as well, never having read anything but "business texts" (whatever those might be). No familiarity with literature, history, languages, philiosophy, art or anything that moves the human spirit.
Wall Street attracts not the best and brightest but the most sociopathic and narcissistic. They should all burn in hell for what they have done to the world. Jail for the masterminds, $10/hour jobs with no benefits for the rest of them--hey, they think those are fine for the plebes, right? No, in fact they think $10/hour is TOO GOOD for the plebes. Fuck Wall Street, I won't be happy till it doesn't exist anymore.
From Whimsy Speaks (http://www.whimsyspeaks.com/2009/03/mo_money.html):
"I am always amazed when seemingly intelligent people report how hard-working Wall Street types "routinely work in excess of 100 hours a week", as Nate did in defense of his friend. I have been known to work completely insane hours. I work out of my home, so I have no commute. I eat generally once a day, unless I'm having a banana at my desk, or peanut butter toast while standing up in the kitchen reviewing code. Even on my best week, I don't think I've ever worked 100 hours in a week. Nate's friend, "Vijay" "routinely worked" more than 100 hours a week. And, "took time out of his day to teach inner-city high schoolers about finance and economics". Between a commute, at least one meal a day, and the occasional demands of life (renewing your passport, a doctor's appointment, etc.) that may leave you 7 hours a day for everything else, including sleep. But, "Vijay" had enough time to have a beer with Nate (even though he had to run off to Kinko's in the middle of it). Unless all Wall Street routinely suffered from sleep deprivation, somebody's math is awry. Or maybe they did, which would explain a lot, actually."
I think Nate might just be feeling a little guilty because he has started to make some money despite himself - I think there are very few Americans who have any hatred for the AIG executives - I think most people just want their money back - I am sure alot of Mets fans feel the same way about the Mets players - this was kind of like if all the Mets players had gotten a World Champs bonus
Hitler loved dogs.
I don't care what kind of beer he drinks or what kind of car he drives. The question is, was he willing to screw people (and the financial system as a whole) for his gain? If not, then fine, he's not personally a bad guy. But the facts indicate that an inordinate number of Wall Street denizens were. So, either your friend is not representative of the group, or your friend isn't as swell a chum as you think he is. You forget your most important caveat--"Most of us are greedy, within reasonable limits, when it comes to our professional lives." The evidence shows that Wall Street as a whole was not constrained by reasonable limits.
Susan Weston,
thank you! When a crazy programmer like me looks out at the world, and sees what's wrong, there's often the question running through my mind "who was supposed to prevent this sort of crap??"
Thanks for telling it like it is, and accepting the collective responsibility.
SEC is investigating 49 other madoffs right now... and that's only about a quarter of the ponzi schemes....
I propose the gov't hires more financial auditors -- the kind of folks who can smell out "unrealistic profits"
Nate, and all others who says profit is good,
The easiest way to make profit is to destroy, not to create. Hedge funds are masters at this.
Good profit is providing SOMETHING for your customers -- be it woot, who provides top notch marketing, or kos, who provides news you use, well, there are a lot of solid THINGS that people can provide each other.
Hedge funds have insisted that the only things worth investing in must needs have more than a 5% profit per year. This has led sectors like restaurants to think of themselves as growth sectors, pursuing a Cancer Strategy -- put down more stores than your competition, put out better profits every year. It's even worse with health care.
I'm sure if Nate's friend was running AIG, we'd be in a lot less fucking trouble, because he wouldn't have blackmailed the fucking us gov't with a world financial collapse to continue to collect his paycheck.
This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen on 538. Not because of the content--I generally don't think demonization is a good thing, either. But because of the method. The whole point of this site is an innovative use of statistical methods to think about politics, right? Well, then, why treat as authoritative a poll with a sample size of one?
Nate, could you perhaps work on developing something like an "asshole index" that would determine more scientifically whether anti-Wall Street animus is justified?
Venu,
by the older measures of middle class (AKA wealth distribution), $250,000 income STARTS the middle class, and it just goes up from there.
I say this mostly to illustrate how poor America has become, without realizing it...
Nate said: "…but most of whom voted in November for a President who vowed to raise their taxes."
?
How's that? Is there evidence of this or is it just your idea of who they probably voted for? Did I miss a post on the phenomenon of Wall Street voting for Obama? Sorry in advance if I did.
Not that I'm going to stop coming here or anything, but this post is probably my least favorite since I started reading 538. Even lower than Sean's fake conversation with the President.
My reasoning is that Vijay didn't need defense. Was he getting a huge bonus on the taxpayer's dime? Probably not, and if so then your defense of him is misguided. And if he is a moral and hardworking fellow, then his job shouldn't be in peril. So why the break from your normal style of posting? The rhetoric we hear about "Wall Street fat cats" and such is going to fade from the American consciousness just like everything else does. And I would put money on the idea that most people, if not a large majority, understand that it's simply a generalization. Eh, whatever. You still rock, I just didn't much care for your most emotional post to date.
P.S. yankees suck
Most of us spend much of our time worrying about whether our car's nice enough, whether we can afford a holiday abroad this year, whether we managed to look clever on an internet message board.
Meanwhile a billion people live on under a dollar a day and millions die of malaria and AIDS. The wealth disparity between us and them is about the same as that between the super-rich and us. We're almost all rich. We're almost all hypocrites.
And, one more time, AIG and stupid derivatives products didn't cause this recession, though they've made it considerably worse. We - government, corporations, consumers - collectively caused the crisis, by putting a decade on the tab. Until we, collectively, admit this, we won't get out of it.
Nate,
Ask your friend how many people he's killed, how many lives he's ruined.
I knew a guy who used to work Foreign Exchange (he did tech work) -- after a while, he couldn't take the death anymore.
I'm pissed as hell at CEOs who have formed an oligarchic good boys club, where no matter how badly you fail, you get a new job to fail at, and have complete job security because your fellow CEOs are the board for your company.
It's them that I scorn and despise, for whining about "but, but, you're limiting our bonuses!"
Yinz deserve it, suckers.
Wait just one second here. Where is the thanks for saving his job? Why don't we get some kind of credit for taking a loan in our children's name to save his job? Last time I checked, if me and the rest of the American taxpayers didn't come to the aid of AIG, Citigroup and the rest I can just about guarantee that Vijay would not have a job. He has us to thank that he gets a salary, period. He would not get a bonus on the unemployment line either. Furthermore, greed is fine but these companies engaged in practices they knew were destructive and they didn't care as long as they got their money up front. These companies, in effect, have violated the national security of the United States of America in ways that Osama Bin Laden can only dream of. That is not hyperbole. I can certainly say that their behavior has cost the country more than the 911 attacks and it is probably also true that the cost in blood in one form or another will easily dwarf that of 911 as well. You may feel sorry for Vijay but it sounds to me like he is still employed, thanks to us. How are your feelings towards the auto workers who had a 0 percent connection CDO's and CDS's, who worked lots of overtime but have no job, partially thanks to companies like the one Vijay works for?
Nate,
It is exactly for this type of thoughtful, deliberate, and empathetic perspective that I read your blog.
Thank you.
I still stand by my original post. Sure there may be some people that are working for the common good whatever the heck that is. But the vast vast majority of people are out there for themseleves.
Trying to pin this on one industry or sector is dumb.
Do you think most doctors do what they do because they want to heal people. Do you think most lawyers do what they do to make the world more fair. Do you think most construction workers do what they do to ensure construction is done well. Do you think most waiters are looking to serve their customers. Do you think the cashier at the department store actually cares about your shopping experience. Do you think consultants actually care about their clients. Do you really? (Ok yes to that last one but only because that is what you are being paid to do and you want more work from them later)
Of course not its all about getting a paycheck. Most people of any intelligence are looking to increase the size of their paycheck. Is it greedy? perhaps but everyone does it.
That what this whole withchunt is. Its scapegoating. Well guess what everyone, from the CEO down to the mailroom guy is just as guilty. So before anyone keeps pointing fingers take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself would you have done anything different? Would you? Really???
Is this supposed to be like the gay thing? You know the line about once you have a gay person in your life it's harder to be a homophobe? Give me a break.
The folks on Wall St and the businessmen that have hijacked America are not evil. They are children. Look at their actions, fiercely independent yet needing and craving constant supervision. The unstoppable creativity, the ability to find trouble out of knowwhere. They are children. And we need to react to them like we wopuld children. Not in a bad way, in a sincere way. We need them. But they need discipline and rules. They need to be allowed to play and run and scream and to be children, but we cannot allow another Lord of the Flies situation to develop. They can set their bedtime, they cannot be allowed to decide how much time they can play video games, or what they are going to eat for dinner each night. Let them play, let them be creative, but we have to be adults and that means we set and enforce the rules.
This post signifies the beginning of the end for 538 as Nate and many of the faithful followers here are unraveling before our very eyes into a chasm of emotional drivel, devoid of reason, intellect, and common sense.
It is also Exhibit A of the intense rift between many on the left and how many of the stereotypes they use to criticize and demonize conservatives are equally if not more applicable to themselves (liberals).
All of those negative and sickening emotions they project onto the Right are now actually proving to be endemic to members of the Left. And now we're counting on these people who are emotionally charged and devoid of sound reason and intellect to lead the country? This is scary. Scary indeed.
I don't understand how you can expect your readers to have any sympathy for someone who has beef with Brooklyn., the finest of the five boroughs.
Nate -
I guessed quite some time ago that your defense of the AIG bonus policy was based on some type of emotional bias. My guess was that you were being courted for a quant job, and/or had friends in the industry.
No big deal.
I don't like being cynical, but on the other hand, the advantage of cynicism is that it almost always gives you the right answer.
I don't think everyone thinks Wall Street bankers are conspicuously greedy, though, as you say, their jobs focus on squeezing profit out of every situation; and the issue most people (who as you say are greedy within reasonable limits) has is that they tend to have no limits and are incapable of identifying (or unwilling to identify) the numbers on their screens with the livelihoods of the people they affect.
Your friend sounds no more greedy than lot, but no less bland. He worked 100 hours a week to raise profit and spent his free time playing one of three gaming consoles? No books? No time at home for cooking? He chose to live as close as he could to work and then poopoos the outer-boroughs? His sense of community outreach is to pass on his profit-drive to high school students?
He sounds just like all other bankers --- a cog in the trickle down economics idea. He exists to collect up all available profit for his bank, get paid handsomely for it, and then spread that wealth back out to the people the profit was squeezed from, through paying high rents for poorly-chosen apartments, eating costly restaurant-meals rather than being self-sufficient in the home, and buying expensive electronic toys.
If we did away with the insane trickle-down system, these people would be unnecessary.
Rant aside, Nate, you of all people should feel ashamed of publishing anecdotal evidence. Where are your stats? Spin me some stats.
(Also, are you frequentist or bayesian? I've been curious.)
I think too, though not explicity expressed in this post, is Nate's on apprehension towards following along with the mob mentality after he's had his own meteoric rise the last year or so, which has had its own lucrative benefits and payouts and likely more to come.
It's funny what a near-7 figure book deal and I'm sure a nice flow of other income streams will do to you and your politics...makes jumping on the anti-rich bandwagon a little harder.
Of course, there's just one little problem. It reeks of hypocrisy.
I don't like being cynical, but on the other hand, the advantage of cynicism is that it almost always gives you the right answer.
I don't agree often with harold's policies and we've had a couple of back-and-forths (though mostly civil), but this line was perfect and hits the nail on the head. Amen.
I think you really missed this one, Nate. It's not about individual character, it's about culture. If you have a culture which rewards irresponsible risk taking and antisocial behavior, then all the individual personalities within it can do is swim with the current, or weakly swim against it, according to their individual inclinations. Or resign--yeah, right, have you seen what they get paid? And even people who love their families and buy beer for their friends can become blinded and caught up in extreme subcultures.
You saw The Reader, right? People are people. The people working in the SS during World War II also had friends and families and fully formed personalities.
Just because you identify with investment bankers, doesn't mean much of the behavior that investment bankers engage in is not antisocial and extemely pernicious. In a different culture, many of the same people would undoubtly be just as happy (perhaps more happy) engaging in less noxious behavior. The behavior is what it is--how much you feel like moralizing about it is a matter of personal taste.
Nate, you make a great point about the danger of demonizing individual investment bankers. However, I don't think you focus enough on the institutional problems of the industry in which these people work.
I too have friends and relatives who work in finance, and I have yet to hear any of them discuss any fundamental flaws in their industry. At most, I hear a DeSantis-like admission that some in the industry are greedy and/or overpaid, which is akin to saying that Abu Ghraib was the work of "a few bad apples."
The problem isn't that individual bankers are greedy, but rather that the institution of investment banking is suffused with the belief that unfettered greed is good for society as a whole. Yes, the public should clamor for better regulation of investment banks, but you can't ignore the fact that these banks have fought tooth and nail to remove any regulation that the government has imposed on them.
So of course it does no good to demonize the individuals working in the finance industry, but it's important to recognize that you can have very good people who work in an industry that does very bad things. Human nature being what it is, these good people are going to be reluctant to recognize that these bad things are intimately associated with their chosen field of work. As a result, the people who are in the best position to fix the problems with the finance industry are the ones least likely to admit that a problem even exists.
Regulation can only do so much when the regulated body refuses to acknowledge that regulation is worthwhile. Many of those bad things you mentioned -- overpaid top executives wielding inordinate political influence to prevent adequate regulation -- are going to keep happening unless the culture of Wall Street changes. And unless people like Vijay acknowledge that there are problems with the culture of their industry, how will anything change?
Quite well stated, Nate. I definitely agree. Good post.
I would note as well, that although I am probably quite a bit more conservative than you, I have completely enjoyed following your work here. From baseball to economics to politics, I find my own interests overlapping with yours, which means I enjoy the perspectives. Keep up the great work.
And maybe someday if I'm lucky, we'll grab a beer at the Map Room together...
I think you are confusing "greedy" with "being Gordon Gekko." As some have aptly pointed out above, no matter how nice these guys may be and no matter how many orphanages they may build with their bare hands, they still go into work each morning in order to shift money around to maximize profit. The problem is that this is what they think to themselves, "I am shifting money around to maximize profit." It sounds ok, unless you think about where the money is being shifted from and to. I don't think bankers are generally Gordon Gekkos---they don't want to break down companies for profit, to squeeze as much work out of people as possible for as little pay as possible (this being where all finance actions end when traced down to their bare parts). But they do, because by giving everything acronyms and indexes, they don't need to think about the consequences.
Nate,
Contrary to many a poster below, I see this post as a natural piece of the work that brings me to 538. Below your statistics, your blog brings the commitment to good work done well. It's what Ta-Nahesi Coates means every time he talks about "craft." Describing Vijay's life fits that commitment, so it fits this work.
Plus, of course, the whole 538 project is a gift from you to the planet, and you're welcome to reshape it to go where your thinking goes. I, for one, will be thoroughly interested in whatever shows up.
Yes let's not assume that folks in this line of work are criminals. That's fair but to claim this is a market failure not a moral one is ignorant. Whether your 'Vijay' is or is not ethical - it's human behavior that led to the meltdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nay4VbUJl3E) not a systemic market process. Many companies require employees pass business ethics training but where's the good PR from Wall St. claiming they engaged as such? I recently saw a NY Times feature that published a resignation letter from an AIG SVP. He claimed he was willing to give his 700k bonus back to those in need and expressed his discern for not being aware of AIGs dicey hedge fund gamble. The tone was that he was a victim looking for sympathy. Please people, grow-up and know what your company is up to - you have that right. You are accountable, whether you like it or not as part of the team, taking a pay check or bonus.
did this blog just jump the shark?
give nate a break here-
he is actually talking about himself. he is feeling guilty for doing very well, but he still likes the benefits of doing well.
i myself feel no reason to defend my class warfare politics. the rich, greedy creeps in the financial sector have been screwing anyone they could for seemingly forever.
so vijay is a good person at heart
he helped support this industry and bears some responsibility.
unfortunately those who bear responsibility for this mess are too numerous to send to jail. my wish is to send those most at fault to jail.
why do white collar criminals get away with so much?
did this blog just jump the shark?
Yes. And I expect a precipitous decline very soon. Nate can at least fall back on his other work. But as for 538, it's toast.
Yes. Thank you.
There's a simple solution. Return to a progessive tax system. Tax income over $1 million at 50-60%, income over $2 million at 70-80%. And tax each portions of income differently, as before Reagan. That way when your tax rate increases you don't get less than you did before you made more. That is, up to $1M at lower rate, 1-2 at higher rate, over 2 at highest rate.
I know this is impractical, but it would stop encouraging extreme greed and provide a practical incentive to behave ethically. It would also quickly address the national debt and allow us to do something about real issues such as the environment, health, and education.
There's a simple solution. Return to a progessive tax system. Tax income over $1 million at 50-60%, income over $2 million at 70-80%. And tax each portions of income differently, as before Reagan. That way when your tax rate increases you don't get less than you did before you made more. That is, up to $1M at lower rate, 1-2 at higher rate, over 2 at highest rate.
I'm as economically conservative as they come, but I'd like to see this or something very similar to what susan suggested.
Heavy progressive taxes on the uber-high income earners is a good idea and is not an impediment to the free market or to capitalism in general.
With regard to paragraph 8 ("It is quite possible to believe . . ."):
First, thank God for sanity and Nate Silver! Second, that's a hell of a long sentence.
Now I also want to point out that just as we should not demonize Wall Street types, we should also not deify them, or any other high-prestige people.
Yes, investment bankers, real-estate titans, media moguls, and the like work hard. But I am reminded of a letter that somebody wrote to the New Yorker in response to their article about Sam Zell. Zell had been quoted insisting that he worked really hard for his money. The letter writer pointed out that even if he worked 80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, Zell was making something like $16,000 an hour. Lots of people work extremely hard at their jobs; how many of them get rewarded that well for it? The point was that hard work, by itself, doesn't come close to explaining why some people make so much more money than others. There must be many other factors involved.
These factors undoubtedly include education, one's parents' wealth, fortuitous timing, and other things that we don't feel entitled to pat ourselves on the back for. If it's unfair to attribute business success mostly to greed, it's also unfair to attribute it mostly to virtue.
nova_middle_man posted the following:
"I'd be curious to see what kinds of jobs some of the negative commenters have.
The purpose of business is to make a profit. If you think that is greedy or you have a problem with that you are being incredibly nieve."
I'm a part-time professor and musician, if that's relevant - which it isn't. The problem isn't greed. It's uncontrolled, unprofessional RECKLESSNESS, sometimes going over the line into CRIMINALITY. We all know that traders created something even less supported than a house of cards, and it's come crashing down. If they had limited their greed to actual investments, not investments based on credits - that is, essentially, nothing - we wouldn't be in such a mess.
I'd be curious to see what kinds of jobs some of the negative commenters have.
Anyone who's been around the future business elite knows full well they aren't really earning their high salaries with great skills. Myself, I'm a physicist, and I earned my degrees from universities filled with economics students, one of which churned out a hefty percentage of those working on Wall Street (Columbia). For people working in a numbers field, they have ass-poor understanding of mathematics. Their true skills involved knowing people, knowing how to know more people, and having the proper amount of envy of their higher-ups to keep them permanently motivated to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Their job qualifications, as was pointed out just above, was having a name-school education (which most of the time means wealthy parents).
At it's heart though, it's all greed. The idea of a businessman being redeemed by spending his spare time on charity work is hilarious. They do such damage, generally, during the day that afterhours help is little comfort. If they really cared, they quit the day job and go over to not-for-profit.
(Also: was this blog not dead after election day?)
Nate, it's ironic that at one moment you're applauding Jon Stewart, who exposed some of the moral failures that created this crisis, and now you're claiming this was just a "market" failure. The fact that Vijay is a nice guy doesn't say much about the destructive culture in the financial services industry.
It's not "naive" to point out these moral failures. People in the "real" world who have some degree of happiness tend to be those employed in their jobs because it brings them satisfaction, not mainly for money. People who are principally in this to make money may be decent, but that doesn't excuse the inherent immorality. Does Vijay have ongoing deep relationshiops after working 100 hours a week? I doubt it. Is this a moral failure? I'm not sure, but the sacrifice he's made may be less a noble act than a tragic one.
Could you just write something like this about the government workers who are vilified?
I work with dangerous psychiatric patients and work for the state where I live. I have been attacked and I carry a soft tissue injury in my shoulder that will not heal on its own thanks to one of my patients. Two days ago, more than 4 patients wanted to jump me, and I couldn't go on the unit.
All this, and what I worry about more is that my fiance's teaching job will be cut and I will be furloughed or laid off or have my pay cut by my governor.
Isn't it enough to be afraid to be killed at my job? Should I also have to shoulder the burden of the state's ridiculous deficit, and the vilification of private-sector-free-market-freaks and the politicians who pander to them.
So I'm sorry. I don't feel sorry that the employees of the very sector that ruined our economy (not a little bit leading to public deficits and my fears of losing my job) are vilified. Its time the people on the top of the pile got a taste of what they've been dishing out to public employees and people who need government help.
Though I wish Vijay well.
I am not here to vilify Wall st. workers -- Vijay or anybody else. My stance though is that those corporations are bankrupt, and they should be working for unemployment pay if they want to stay in those companies. That's all I'm willing to spend on them with my taxes.
The argument that the financial mess is *so* complicated, that we need to pay millions to the very same qualified workers who made it to clean up is bullshit.
High risk job. Sometimes people get rich, sometimes they lose it all.
I'm sure he's an incredible young man.
That said, this story and the AIG I quit NY Op-Ed seem like empty and fairly meaningless anecdotes.
The self-righteousness is horrendous: when the going gets tough for the wall street guys they get the pages of the top papers to complain, yet how is their story any different than the immigrant who works incredibly hard, sends money back home and then is laid-off and shoved aside?
Life isn't fair. Last time I checked, when the management of company screws up and the place goes bankrupt--everybody loses their jobs, not just the ones that screwed up.
Even if this young man is a great guy, so what? We are in this together--the homeowners who were greedy and the wall street bankers focused on short-term gains.
These petty emotional appeals are flawed at the onset. The reality that wall street is entering into is the same reality that blue (and white) collar Americans have lived in for decades.
Not to drag this post and its comments on and on and on and on, but: The whole "smartest guys in the room" and "MIT grad" (or pick your favorite between the Ivies, Stanford and a few more. There have been many incredibly talented individuals who graduated in the same year as Vijay, or perhaps the year that most the senior management of the most illustrious investment firms did. Taking MIT, here's a small sample of people who didn't make the $2 million a year that DeSantis (of NYT confessional fame) did:
Ronald McNair, Doctorate of Science, laser development, astronaut on the Challenger
Tom Scholz, Master of Science, dozens of patents in electronics, found of the band Boston
Colin Angle, MS in Computer Science, founder of iRobot, maker of the Roomba
Robert Metcalfe, Bachelor EE, Founder of 3COM, co-founder of Ethernet
John Sununu, MS in Mechanical Engineering, US Senator
Steve Altes, BS in Aeronautics, developed Pegasus space booster, Humorist, body double for Brad Pitt, model on the box of "Just For Men" Sandy Blond hair color
Some of the most senior officers of the firms of the Dow 30, with tens of thousands of people reporting to them in their division, didn't make what the average mid-level investment firm wonk made.
That's what is wrong with this picture.
What absolute crap. Seriously. So your good friend is a banker, and he seems like a normal guy aside from valuing his work life over a personal life. Or, maybe, his work life is his personal life? So, a sample of one which is statistically what? Oh yeah, this is an emotional tug at our heartstrings.
So, to Godwinize this, imagine another time where your best friend is a Nazi employed at a concentration camp. Hey, outside work he's a good guy, I'm sure a lot of them are. Nice family men, so what if they're shoveling Jews into ovens, it's all OK, they're nice people.
The banking/financial system has sold us out into the craphole we're in. I don't have a lot of sympathy for any of them. They live in a world of short-term profit over everything. Your friend might be a nice person, but he's part and parcel of a system that needs a violent cleansing, and new ideals.
"the vast majority of whom are like Vijay: hard-working and ethical folks, maybe a little money-obsessed, but most of whom voted in November for a President who vowed to raise their taxes."
Nate? I'm really surprised to see something like this on 538. Do you really believe that the "vast majority" of people making north of $200K on Wall Street voted for Obama? That's surely wrong, as I think you know and have shown in some of your more analytical posts. Don't oversell.
I think the best argument on the bankers is simply that there was no way for individual bankers to avoid selling garbage they knew to be toxic. If you refused to sell it, you'd be fired in favor of someone else who would - it was all entirely too profitable and there were too many ways to rationalize away the risk.
What you need to save the bankers from competing to their (and our) collective detriment is someone outside the system who can write rules that limit competition by declaring the most dangerous contracts out of bounds.
The pursuit of profit is hardly a BAD thing. The pursuit of profit that kills the long term profitability of your company is STUPID, DUMB and DOWNRIGHT IRRESPONSIBLE.
Sadly, wall street has made it MANDATORY. Circuit City is NOT an abberation.
Born and Bred American Dopes.
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.
"Most" of the "vast majority" of "people who work on Wall Street" voted for Obama?
I think I'm going to need to see some data to support that assertion.
Btw, I think we've all heard enough apologia for the tragically misunderstood WallSt fatcats.
Sad how when people of less means are demonized by the MSM, no one shows up for their defense.
But the financial crisis reflects, as I have written, a market failure rather than a moral one.
If I found a loophole in the law that allowed me to kill people with bows and arrows -- then I did, living off of money taken from them after legally shooting them -- you might be able to call it a failure of regulation. But it's also pretty clearly a moral failure as well.
酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,
I wonder how old Vijay’s mattress was, it sounds like he may not have been sleeping well when he was a Wall Street Banker. Our research at the Sleepsonian Institute has proven that the average mattress can actually double in weight in just 10 years. How, you ask? Well these strange bedfellows are all to blame:
Dust Mites (Dust mites feed on dead skin. 100,000 to 10,000,000 dust mites can live in one mattress. Their fecal matter is churning up into the air with even the slightest body movement. People breathe these in nightly. A dust mite will also produce 200 times its body weight in excrement during their life span.)
Sweat (1 cup of sweat per night by a person is soaked into mattresses)
Mold (Fungus, spores): Moisture gets trapped and causes mold)
Dead skin (humans shed 2-3 pounds of dead skin per year. We shed 10 million scales of bacteria laden skin each day, most ending up in our mattresses).
Humans shed their skin every 25-45 days. 1/5 of an oz. of dead skin per week.
Visit us at www.sleepsonian.com and learn more. In the interim, please, for pete's sake, get a new mattress.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment