Shackle ferd (el 21/01/14 a las 3:21 am)
A86 (el 22/11/11 a las 2:18 am)
@burgrman - If a trader doesn't make $380k/year then he's not part of the
1%. That would make him part of the top 5% or so if he makes less than that
amount. "They don't all make money every time they step into the way most
folks do" Yes, but usually they have more savings than the average folk.
That phrase "paycheck-to-paycheck" really does describe most Americans
pretty well because if the average non-rich person got laid off they
wouldn't have enough savings to last more than a few months.
A86 (el 05/11/12 a las 5:11 am)
end up homeless if they are laid off or if the business fails. Most of the
time the guys at the top can walk away still having a nice nest egg if the
company goes under. The people on the bottom are the ones who will be poor
or homeless a few months after the job ends if they don't find another one
and are usually the ones to take most of the blame if things don't work out
with projects. "Employees are one part in the machine" Yes, the most
important part. Without them there is no company.
burgrman (el 22/11/11 a las 2:08 am)
@A86 I'm not a trader but I have worked on trading floors and I can tell
you have a Hollywood-type of image about traders. He says that the 1% makes
~$380,000 or more. Some traders don't even make 380k. Some lose their money
more than make it some years because of risks. They don't all make money
every time they step into the way most folks do. I know I am salaried and I
am guaranteed a check as long as I'm employed. Take that into account when
you speak of how overpaid a trader is.
s9z9s (el 05/11/12 a las 5:32 am)
One third of homeowners have no mortgage, and many rent as well. And you
WORK because nothing is FREE. No one is forcing you to enter into any one
contract, but you can't expect to survive if you lie on your back all day.
If banks make overly risky bets and waste money, I HOPE they go under. I
completely oppose Obunghole's banker bailouts. As for golden parachutes,
companies compete to get the best executives and CEOs. That doesn't mean
that they profit most if their business fails, au contraire
vegaskidd (el 03/02/13 a las 12:02 pm)
He fails to mention the gov spends more money than any private entity ,
thats the difference, obama spent a trillion as someone that has not
s9z9s (el 05/11/12 a las 4:31 am)
Excuse me? Other people's money? Do you know what a "contract" is? That's
called a "voluntary arrangement."
SuperKnowledgeSponge (el 01/08/12 a las 7:52 am)
I bet that these bankers came from elite schools, growing up thinking that
the world owes them a living. Yet and yet, these people have the most
influence over government policies. How disgusting.
A86 (el 15/01/13 a las 3:14 am)
"once there is a corrupt law or the possibility to establish one, it will
always be exploited" And I agree. While I know this will always happen due
to human nature that still doesn't make the culprits any less culpable IMO.
In Nazi Germany it was legal to murder minorities but IMO that doesn't take
away any guilt from people who did just that just because it was legal.
Most humans still have a hard-wired sense of ethics and know right and
wrong. In my eyes the govt and corps are both guilty.
bastibip (el 15/01/13 a las 3:15 am)
executives can only persuade the board, they can't force the board to do
anything just like you can't force the manager to do anything, but you can
also persuade the manager. And if the manager is a buddy of yours he could
also favour you cause of your connections. there aren't that many
occurrences of execs bribing the board, but when it occurs it's always a
big deal and in the news. However it doesn't make the news if you try to
bribe your supervisor.