That's unfortunate. Perhaps if you had been more selective in your choice you wouldn't have found yourself in such a predicament. The i-banking layoffs of 00 and 01 were quite hard on guys like you who didn't have the Cambridge or New Haven pedigree. At least you landed on your feet in the minors rather than sticking it out up here; you might still be pounding the pavement had you not.
Laughable. I have many times on this bbs explained why I left the most selective group within the most selective bank in the world. The lifestyle sucked. I left it voluntarily for greener pastures. I now work far less hours, receive more money and play a much larger role in the corporation. So tell me Sam, why couldn't you get in to Yale? Why couldn't you get in to Cravath, or S&C, or White & Case? GOOD DAY Back on topic, before the thread was hijacked by RM95, I am still awaiting your answer, RM95, as to how our country's standard of living has declined over the past 50 years. I look forward to reading about how technological advances and dramatic increases in wealth have set us back mightily in how we live our lives. Please share.
Indeed? Why not do what many of my colleagues did, and go from banking to a private equity firm or buyout firm or something of that ilk? More money, less hours, and still on the Varsity team, something that H-Town lacks. No, your story simply does not add up. As for myself, I didn't even apply to Yale, I probably couldn't have gotten in and I laugh at your suggestions that White & Case is a firm of any repute....please. Although maybe I'll confirm that with some former co workers of mine who are now employed there, after being unable to cut it here.
In Houston. That's like bombing out in a professional fighting career in Thailand and then proudly proclaiming yourself the Muay Thai champion of the Golden Valley Retirement Home in Boca Raton.
All of this from a man who uses pictures of TV stars to make his "expert" opinion known. Answer these two questions, if you can: 1. Why are more middle class women forced into the work place now than 50 years ago? 2. Given the sheer number of well educated people who live in India and China, how can our standard of living not fall when our high paying technology jobs migrate there? People in China and India will work for 20% of the going American wage. There is a relatively endless supply of capable employees in India and China who would love to make this kind of money. Your efficient enonomic resourses theory would suggest that jobs will flow freely from here to there. For the flow to stop either the price of workers there has to go up (which aint going to happen soon given the large pool of unemployed/underemployed workers in both of these countries) or the price of workers here has to drop. Certainly in the short and mid term, high paying middle class jobs will be leaving this country. Thus, the standard of living in our middle class will drop.
Yes, in Houston, my preferred city. I did not even look in New York for a job. You see, some people like yourself get caught up in the penis-measuring contest that most rational people refer to as the rat race. They think that if they don't work for the top firm, in the top group, in the top city, then they have nothing. Let me tell you something, I have perspective on this issue because I have lived it. I have been there. It ain't all it was cracked up to be. In many ways, I suspect your current job is the same way. How can your job keep your attention, Sam, when you spend the majority of your day parked on CC.Net? My point is this: At some point, you have to 'harvest'. Going to Houston was my time to step out of the rat race and enjoy life. While I work 40 hour weeks and live large, you are still churning on your hamster wheel. Enjoy!
LOL, speaking of Hamster Wheels, I have completely ensnared you in my trap and effectively caused you to contort yourself like something out of Cirque de Soleil as the above quoted meltdown suggests. Who would have thought, the mighty Trader_Jorger, champion of elitism and snobbery, denouncing the status symbols of money and power in the name of "perspective!" What's next friend, are you to move to a Commune in Northern California to get some more "perspective" Or even better, how about you cease taking showers and start following Phish around the country on tour to do some more "harvesting"! Can Wiccanism be far behind for Trader Jorge in his never ending spiritual quest to find himself? PLAYED
Which means you hijacked it. I responded, in topic of the thread, to Mr. Clutch. You responded to me about my response, and I responded to you about my response, all in topic. YOU hijacked the thread by posting an insult to me. What's wrong, you didn't want to start a whole new thread lamely attempting to embarass me (lamely, since it's not embarassing and it was really a veiled attempt at coming out of the closet for you)? Didn't want another anti-RM95 post to backfire in your face? What's the matter? Little_Jorge scared that I won't waste my next opportunity to get you banned. And I'm willing to bet money that you would've been banned had I acted how you no doubt would've acted and reported the thread to the moderator. Tattletale. On topic, I answered your question. It's not relevant because that's not what I was arguing. I was just pointing out that I didn't think Mr. Clutch's argument held water, not that I didn't agree with the conclusion.
Perhaps you didn't hear me the first time: More money. Less hours. Larger role. You know, it won't be long, Sam, before your job is exported to India. Boiled down to its core, the corporate lawyer's job is to read documents, memorize them, and provide advice on them. It's a simple game of reading and reciting. It's a commodity job that is perfectly suited for export. In the meantime, CHURN ON, HAMSTER BOY!
Your point actually does make sense despite the furor it caused. To clarify, our cost of living[i/] has gone down. We are buying a lot more stuff, not just because we are going into debt, but because things are more affordable and we are making more money. We do have too much debt, but our standard of living is increasing despite that. Here are some stats from George Will's column on Gregg Easterbrooks' book (I couldn't find an independent source but I assume they are accurate): "The typical American has twice the purchasing power his mother or father had in 1960. A third of America's families own at least three cars. In 2001 Americans spent $25 billion — more than North Korea's GDP — on recreational watercraft. " more here- http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will011204.asp
I never argued that it was anything different. That's why I asked the question. I'm not and have never claimed that I was any kind of expert in economics. You can count on one hand the number of times I've ever tried to discuss it here. Once again, you try to derail and hijack this thread in an attempt to embarass me. Go start a whole thread. Let's see if you have the cajones. Until you do, or move out of Houston, or find Mr. Right on Match.com, shut up. Mr. Clutch, thanks in advance for answering the question without personal insults.
I looked it up: Definition 1 The value of money, as measured by the quantity and quality of products and services it can buy. also called buying power. Basically a dollar goes farther today than it did 20 years or even 10 years ago. Think about the POS car your parents could afford compared to what you are driving today. It's probably better in every way.
You're still around? I thought after I Frans Mesmer'd you into denouncing the American Dream like a barefoot flower child and extolling the virtues of dropping out and tuning out like Ken Kesey or Wavy Gravy, you'd have slunk away. Take heed or else I shall cause you further embarassment. Your flower power is no help to you here.
The statistic that household incomes are only moderately higher than 25 years ago is misleading: Households today average fewer people, so real dollar incomes in middle-class households are about 50 percent higher today. Isn't this just cooking the numbers? Households may have a higher income, because Mom works and has less kids (thus increasing the income per capita in the household).
On the other hand there are many more single parent households today. I've always thought friends with kids who say both parents have to work in order to afford child care were missing the big picture, maybe one of them should stay home and raise the kids...
