Okay. I worked at GS and we were treated very well. Not just the millionaires. When I worked there, it was the kind of place that employed nurses who sent every woman there confidential letters to say that you needed a mammogram, and you had to call extension 2XXX to schedule yours, which took place on the premises. I'm sure the boys got the same letters about their prostates or other boy parts.I can't see how this is a bad thing. I was working so many hours, I'd never have gone for a mammo if Mama Goldman hadn't made me do so.But carry on hating. I'm proud to be a former employee. I left ten years ago, but I will always be proud to say I worked there.Here is a little story about GS. On my first day of work, I smoked a cigarette. In my office, with the door closed; It was legal at the time. The secretary in the cubicle outside, not my secretary and not a secretary to anyone important, complained to HR that the second-hand smoke aggravated her asthma. Goldman took her complaint seriously and made me swap offices with a fellow several doors down. It was a major pain to swap both offices out, but it was done and the fellow who was moved never complained to me. It was a bit embarrassing to me, to be moved in my first week. HR called me as soon as I had resettled, to ask if all was okay and if I was upset. Nobody asks a smoker if things are okay when they are moved, but GS did. I said the only thing I could, that I was sorry to have caused so much chaos. I didn’t say what I was thinking, that two very well paid executives had been moved because a secretary complained. That would never have happened in any other place I have worked. The secretary would have been canned.
i used to work for the head of a bank whose lady is a celebrity and i cant remember if it was when this whole swine flu thing began last year?? or some other flu or illness thing was going around but ALL of the pharmacies were out of cipro yet she managed to get some (and my co worker had to go hold it hostage at the duane reade until her flack came to pick it up). #aporkalypse
Okay, it's not fair, but H1N1 is not ebola. And there's a window between getting the jab and actual immunity, so I don't count the vaccine as being some kind of holy grail.
My family has swine flu now. It is unpleasant, but I'm able to care for three sick children and myself. It isn't pretty, but we're essentially okay.
I've been sicker with other flus, in fact. #aporkalypse
@pollyannacowgirl: I am happy that you are your family are okay. One woman from my office ended up in the hospital because of H1N1. It is not ebola, but the flu does kill people. Particularly people who have compromised immune systems and asthma. #aporkalypse
As Mort Sahl once said, "The ship of state is sinking, and the rich are making sure the first class cabins are water-tight". We apparently have an unlimited capacity to be played for chumps - at least until we really run out of money. #aporkalypse
@uncivilly obedient: If that's the case, everyone at Golman Sachs has been sick with the flu or dead for years now. Which renders the vaccine pretty much moot. So wasteful, these bankers! #aporkalypse
Citigroup has been supplied with 1,200 units and Goldman with 200, says Jessica Scaperotti, press secretary for the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. The agency has so far approved orders by 29 employers—including 16 that have yet to receive any vaccine—after they were cleared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). Big employers that have received or are scheduled to receive vaccine so far include Time Warner (TWX), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Memorial Sloan-Kettering, New York Presbyterian Healthcare System, and New York University.
The biggest health risk with H1N1 is absenteeism. From work, at big companies. Babies and children will not die unless there are complications. Everyone in my family save my wife and I have had the virus, including an 8-year-old with asthma - it's easily combatted with Tamiflu.
@Unsolicited Advice: I'd counter that the biggest risk with H1N1 is DEATH.
Which, unless Goldman and Citi have recently taken to hiring teenagers and pregnant women exclusively, means that there is zero justification for them having, much less STOCKPILING these vaccines.
But it's not surprising that Wall Street once again has a tin ear for public relations. When the NY Fed, Goldman, Citi AND Chase get these vaccines while pregnant women wait for hours in lines, it's another great demonstration of how fucking clueless the bankers are. #aporkalypse
The report John linked indicates that the vaccine is for high-value personnel within corporations. Since absenteeism is the most critical highest risk presented by H1N1, prevented large losses by inoculating executives is numerically wise. Sorry! There are federal guidelines alluded to in this memo - we should see if Goldman's receipt of vaccine is somehow abnormal rather than distorting every piece of news related to the firm in some yellow fever of mudraking rage:
You see how that works, right? The only way to keep people is to pay them millions of dollars. If you stop paying them millions of dollars, they will leave. Bank of America's evidence of this is that 45% of the people to whom it was paying the most millions of dollars left. Q.E.D.
They saw it coming. Top performers at notable TARP banks have been jumping ship at an incredible rate. Use the internet. #aig
@Unsolicited Advice: If they were really top performers (as opposed to over-paid charlatans), then why were the companies they ran teetering on the brink of failure, and threatening to pull the real economy down into the hole with them? #aig
You understand that banks have revenue streams all over the place, right? There's the bond shop. The equity shop. Client service. The back end. All of them have wildly different, easily individualized performance - and the guys doing well want to be paid. If they aren't, they'll take their clients to another firm that's willing to compensate them. It may shock you, because the media covers this very poorly, but corporations aren't one big box where everyone shares. #aig
"skimming millions in taxpayer dollars"? you guys crack me up with how much you have simplified this issue, typical liberals. Have fun watching your city goto shit because you depend on these EVIL executives to fund your infrastructure and employ your city, this wont bite you in the ass or anything... change the system to fit what you think is "right" and we will gladly take these executives and their salaries down here in Philly. #aig
It's not "funding" if it's printed money covering sour bets. That's called a mirage. New York is basically a national debt citadel - it's doomed. Philly should be so grateful that it's already dealing with massive shortfalls and burgeoning crime. At least it will have a leg up! #aig
@Lafarge: AIG was playing such games with compensation even well before TARP that the former CEO was able just to pocket the entire separate entity they had set up to pay compensation to highly-paid employees and walk away with what, a few hundred million of shareholder money? They weren't funding infrastructure - they were building private golf courses and lining their pockets. #aig
@Lafarge: Omigod, now I see you're from Philly! clean up the bloodsuckers in your govt before you go giving NYC a hard time. "Corrupt and content" - it's still true. #aig
AIG was a shitshow since 2005 / 2006, when Maury "Hank" Greenberg and sons got caught with their leathery hands in the cookie jar. None of this should come as any surprise to anyone. #aig
Summary of massive screed deleted: there are unintended consequence to this populism. Pay restraints have to get everybody, not just TARP guys, or you screw the taxpayer even harder. Non-TARP firms are feasting on the Phibros, Mitch Coxes, Bob McCanns, etc.
Proposed solution: wanna limit banker pay? Don't bail the banks they work for out. Liquidate the paper wealth.
Point worth noting- Citigroup $4.3B profit included a $6.7B sales of SmithBarney (once their pride and joy). In other words, without the sale they'd be in the hole $2.4B.
Now compare that with the same time period last year where they lost $2.5B. You might think that $2.4B is better, however keep in mind the economic climate was much worse last year.
@Housebroken(mostly): I noted that, perhaps too obliquely, in the post when I pointed out that Citibank says it's not really making money. But that's kind of like saying if I hadn't made any money last year then I'd be in a lot of debt. In fact, it's exactly like saying that.
@John Cook: I like the spirit of what you're saying, but it's more like,"I had $10K in gambling debts, but I sold my car $12K, therefore I made 2K in profits." Never mind the fact that you've left yourself no vehicle for future profits (pardon the pun)...
It's called "Voodoo Economics" because it involves zombies.
The rot starts in credit, and the knock-on effect is that whole sections of the economy fail exactly in the manner you described. The bailout constitutes a bet that those zombies will be restored to life when normal economic function returns. It's like anything else in finance, a risk taken with the expectation of reward - only in this case, taxpayers stand to benefit.
If, as you stated, rich people aren't booking things because of recrimination fears, fear is the only thing preventing Citigroup from making money to pay AIG to pay the Fed back. Meaning that the recrimination in this piece is just a self-fulfilling hateful anti-wealth screed that is legitimately damaging to the economy!
(This is why your boss believes that the media caused the recession in part. Congratulations, now you're the media!)
@Unsolicited Advice: The bailout constitutes a transfer of wealth from me to people who make orders of magnitude more than I do. There's no way around that. Some people see that as a rational response to an economic crisis--or, as you put it, "a bet" that "normal economic function" will return. "Normal economic function" meaning a system wherein extravagantly wealthy people make enormous amounts of money and other people make regular amounts of money and there is a sustainable amount of poverty. In the current spate of abnormal economic function, extravagantly wealthy people are still making enormous amounts of money, while a diminishing amount of regular people make diminishing amounts of money and poverty rapidly becomes unsustainable. But somehow Citigroup still gets to keep its $2.4 billion, financed by you and me. We changed a vast array of rules in order to prop up the banks, but not the one that says they get to keep their profits and bankers get to make millions of dollars. That one is, for some reason, inviolate.
How is the profitable operation of the St. Regis hotel contingent upon the existence of a class of "extravagantly wealthy people?"
You're hitching your arguments against the bailout to what I see as a broad thesis that our economy was reliant upon huge disaparities between rich and poor. That isn't true - there is no economic truism on display in the simple operation of swank hotels, and it's not like the post-recession period will be characterized by gray movie theaters and fast food restaurants that our homogenous society shuffles off to. I'll agree that the economy was dependent upon the rich and those who were rich enough to borrow their way into extravagance. I'll agree that we built too many chintzy fake-glam hotels, high-end retail outlets, and luxury SUVs. But does a narrowing in the rich/poor gap mean splitting the pie more fairly or growing the pie? Global economic output is not some zero-sum game, and this hotel will gladly open its gilded doors to a new generation of affluents in a decade.
Maybe the St. Regis falls victim to a world stalked by fewer wealthy individuals and this money is lost. But maybe it doesn't, and we do well on the deal as taxpayers. There's every expectation that money will be lost during the bailout but remember that its primary function is to delay and defer losses. The thought is and remains that banks can survive on their profitable businesses/subsidiaries while absorbing commercial real estate and credit losses. And keep in mind, the existence of Citi as a creditor is keeping everyone at the St. Regis off unemployment.
The idea that these Federal loans will never be paid back is narrow and self-serving. The world isn't coming to some ignominous post-wealth end. I'm not saying it's all going to be great - there WILL be losses, and pain, and suffering - but it's only theft if there's no upside.
Question: Where is St. Regis's parent, Westin, in all of this? I'd guess they're hurting like the rest of the travel industry, but why did St. Regis (or this particular resort) turn to Citibank instead of its bosses for funding?
11/06/09
But, hey, carry on, John. #aporkalypse
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
My family has swine flu now. It is unpleasant, but I'm able to care for three sick children and myself. It isn't pretty, but we're essentially okay.
I've been sicker with other flus, in fact. #aporkalypse
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
The biggest health risk with H1N1 is absenteeism. From work, at big companies. Babies and children will not die unless there are complications. Everyone in my family save my wife and I have had the virus, including an 8-year-old with asthma - it's easily combatted with Tamiflu.
Pulitzer-worthy post, John. #aporkalypse
11/05/09
Which, unless Goldman and Citi have recently taken to hiring teenagers and pregnant women exclusively, means that there is zero justification for them having, much less STOCKPILING these vaccines.
But it's not surprising that Wall Street once again has a tin ear for public relations. When the NY Fed, Goldman, Citi AND Chase get these vaccines while pregnant women wait for hours in lines, it's another great demonstration of how fucking clueless the bankers are. #aporkalypse
11/05/09
The CDC dispensed the vaccine - there is a limited supply and they are charged with determining how to distribute it.
[www.cdc.gov]
The report John linked indicates that the vaccine is for high-value personnel within corporations. Since absenteeism is the most critical highest risk presented by H1N1, prevented large losses by inoculating executives is numerically wise. Sorry! There are federal guidelines alluded to in this memo - we should see if Goldman's receipt of vaccine is somehow abnormal rather than distorting every piece of news related to the firm in some yellow fever of mudraking rage:
[www.opm.gov] #aporkalypse
11/05/09
11/05/09
I really do try to be the funny fatalist. #aporkalypse
10/22/09
You see how that works, right? The only way to keep people is to pay them millions of dollars. If you stop paying them millions of dollars, they will leave. Bank of America's evidence of this is that 45% of the people to whom it was paying the most millions of dollars left. Q.E.D.
They saw it coming. Top performers at notable TARP banks have been jumping ship at an incredible rate. Use the internet. #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
You understand that banks have revenue streams all over the place, right? There's the bond shop. The equity shop. Client service. The back end. All of them have wildly different, easily individualized performance - and the guys doing well want to be paid. If they aren't, they'll take their clients to another firm that's willing to compensate them. It may shock you, because the media covers this very poorly, but corporations aren't one big box where everyone shares. #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
It's not "funding" if it's printed money covering sour bets. That's called a mirage. New York is basically a national debt citadel - it's doomed. Philly should be so grateful that it's already dealing with massive shortfalls and burgeoning crime. At least it will have a leg up! #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Summary of massive screed deleted: there are unintended consequence to this populism. Pay restraints have to get everybody, not just TARP guys, or you screw the taxpayer even harder. Non-TARP firms are feasting on the Phibros, Mitch Coxes, Bob McCanns, etc.
Proposed solution: wanna limit banker pay? Don't bail the banks they work for out. Liquidate the paper wealth.
07/21/09
The St Regis
There's a New Project in Town.
07/21/09
Now compare that with the same time period last year where they lost $2.5B. You might think that $2.4B is better, however keep in mind the economic climate was much worse last year.
Citi is pretty much in the toilet...
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
The rot starts in credit, and the knock-on effect is that whole sections of the economy fail exactly in the manner you described. The bailout constitutes a bet that those zombies will be restored to life when normal economic function returns. It's like anything else in finance, a risk taken with the expectation of reward - only in this case, taxpayers stand to benefit.
If, as you stated, rich people aren't booking things because of recrimination fears, fear is the only thing preventing Citigroup from making money to pay AIG to pay the Fed back. Meaning that the recrimination in this piece is just a self-fulfilling hateful anti-wealth screed that is legitimately damaging to the economy!
(This is why your boss believes that the media caused the recession in part. Congratulations, now you're the media!)
07/21/09
07/21/09
How is the profitable operation of the St. Regis hotel contingent upon the existence of a class of "extravagantly wealthy people?"
You're hitching your arguments against the bailout to what I see as a broad thesis that our economy was reliant upon huge disaparities between rich and poor. That isn't true - there is no economic truism on display in the simple operation of swank hotels, and it's not like the post-recession period will be characterized by gray movie theaters and fast food restaurants that our homogenous society shuffles off to. I'll agree that the economy was dependent upon the rich and those who were rich enough to borrow their way into extravagance. I'll agree that we built too many chintzy fake-glam hotels, high-end retail outlets, and luxury SUVs. But does a narrowing in the rich/poor gap mean splitting the pie more fairly or growing the pie? Global economic output is not some zero-sum game, and this hotel will gladly open its gilded doors to a new generation of affluents in a decade.
Maybe the St. Regis falls victim to a world stalked by fewer wealthy individuals and this money is lost. But maybe it doesn't, and we do well on the deal as taxpayers. There's every expectation that money will be lost during the bailout but remember that its primary function is to delay and defer losses. The thought is and remains that banks can survive on their profitable businesses/subsidiaries while absorbing commercial real estate and credit losses. And keep in mind, the existence of Citi as a creditor is keeping everyone at the St. Regis off unemployment.
The idea that these Federal loans will never be paid back is narrow and self-serving. The world isn't coming to some ignominous post-wealth end. I'm not saying it's all going to be great - there WILL be losses, and pain, and suffering - but it's only theft if there's no upside.
07/21/09
07/21/09