Sympathy for the Devil

Bonus Withdrawal Puts Bankers in "Malaise"

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy.
Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country's top 1 percent by income, doesn't cover his family's private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.

"I feel stuck," Schiff said. "The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach."

Maybe we could have a benefit concert.

My heart breaks for him.

Jayhawker wrote:

Maybe we could have a benefit concert.

I have my teeny-tiny violin.

Wow. Schiff is a douche.

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. "Could you imagine what it's like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?"

Hey, Mr. Entitled Pigf*cker, how about you think about what the majority of Americans, much less the world, have to deal with? Like, you know, ACTUAL problems?

That cocaine ain't gonna snort itself, pal.

Katy wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Maybe we could have a benefit concert.

I have my teeny-tiny violin.

I'll bring the trombone.

1 Percenter Problems

Tkyl wrote:

1 Percenter Problems

To be fair, I'm sure we all sound a lot like this guy to the poor of Afghanistan and Somalia. I'm not saying he isn't greedy, entitled or disgusting. I'm just saying he probably sincerely feels stress and sincerely laments falling short of his dreams, same as any of us. It's human nature. If we live a certain way for long enough, that becomes our baseline.

But yeah, f*ck that guy.

No matter how much you make, you can write checks you can't cash. This is true from the smallest to the largest entities -- even the people who print money can write checks the economy itself can't cash.

The smart ones will have been living well below their means, and won't be much hurt by this... and I have no sympathy for the guys who are overextended. Because of their antics and the f*cked up structure of the financial system, where they're worrying about pulling their kids out of private school, other parents are worrying about being able to afford enough food.

You want to talk about stress, try dealing with malnourished kids.

I blame the 0.1%, they're totally screwing this guy.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I blame the 0.1%, they're totally screwing this guy.

Occupy Bill Gates's House!

LobsterMobster wrote:

But yeah, f*ck that guy.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

Me, my rage is because it's being a whiny bitch over a good livelihood. I mean, the guy's got a home, a family, a job, and a lot of luxuries.

I may be frustrated with the healthcare struggles I'll potentially be facing in the near future, but I have it good. I make a decent income. I have a safe and secure home. I don't have a wife or children even though I want them - but I'm in a place where I can be open to the possibility, and that's worth being grateful for. I don't really like the company I work for, but I'm glad I have a job that doesn't require me to work in unsafe conditions or compromise my ethics.

My life is good, especially in comparison to the majority of the world's population. I'm not going to piss and moan about a little relative hardship here and there.

So yes. When I say "f*ck that guy" and express complete disdain for these entitled pieces of sh*t, I am proud to be able to do so without irony.

To a certain level, it's a matter of scale. Your spending, even responsible spending, grows as your income grows. If I made the money to do it, I would probably send my kids to a private school rather than a public one. I would live in a nicer home somewhere that I would like to live (me, I like trees, water, and hills, all of which are expensive). When that was no longer a realistic option, I would probably be upset and disappointed. You know, this statement here, I think is reasonable -

Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country's top 1 percent by income, doesn't cover his family's private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.

"I feel stuck," Schiff said. "The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach."

He has goals and he feels stymied in them. Nowhere did he say "I'm being screwed by the little man!" or anything like that. He may still believe he's lucky to have what he wants, but it's perfectly natural to feel a kick in the dangle when you fall short of what you thought you could do. I'm giving this guy the benefit of the doubt - he could obviously be some entitled whiny idiot who thinks that he's literally owed a better income because of his ... being him. But I dunno.

Unlike this guy -

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy.

... I want to shake by his lapels a little bit.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Unlike this guy -

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy.

... I want to shake by his lapels a little bit.

Yeah, he's the one I was particularly raging at.

But even Schiff's comments, as he elaborates in the article; the guy's problems are of his own making. So he wants a bigger home for his kids, and a dishwasher so they don't have to wash their dishes by hand anymore (OH THE HORROR). Ok, then look within your means. Give up the dream brownstone home and get a more modest home (the fact that I had to phrase that as "modest" when it's lavish by most people's standards is ridiculous, btw) that meets their criteria.

Some not safe for work language

Reading that article, these yo-yos are really bad at managing their money. $17,000 a year to take care of two dogs? $1,500,000 for a 17-ft-wide townhouse? Multi-month vacation home rentals and ski trips?

These guys have to cut the ridiculous expenditures on things they don't need, sure, but they aren't going to end up homeless on their 6-figure salaries. Welcome to the real world, where people have to save for things, make budgets, and balance luxuries and necessities.

Farscry wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Unlike this guy -

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy.

... I want to shake by his lapels a little bit.

Yeah, he's the one I was particularly raging at.

But even Schiff's comments, as he elaborates in the article; the guy's problems are of his own making. So he wants a bigger home for his kids, and a dishwasher so they don't have to wash their dishes by hand anymore (OH THE HORROR). Ok, then look within your means. Give up the dream brownstone home and get a more modest home (the fact that I had to phrase that as "modest" when it's lavish by most people's standards is ridiculous, btw) that meets their criteria.

Sure, and I'm not saying anything counter to that. I'm just pointing out that I'm wary of an article that is trying to paint the complaining by itself in a negative light. It just strikes me as unfair, because it doesn't really analyze or mention what they're doing beyond that. It simply makes you want to draw the conclusion in your head that they're sitting on their hands whining and waiting for a handout while not exactly saying it. Who wouldn't complain about losing that kind of income?

It does go on to mention several folks are changing their spending habits, which is a good thing, I think - it shows that not everyone who makes good money is some sort of entitled idiot who couldn't figure out where the cereal aisle is.

If you're making $50,000 and your salary gets down to $40,000 and you have to cut, it's very severe to you," Dlugash said. "But it's no less severe to these other people with these big numbers."

I suspect that the type of cuts you have to make going from $50,000 to $40,000 are different than the cuts you have to make going from $250,000 to $200,000.

Ah, I see your point now, Bloo, and I don't disagree with you.

Agent 86 wrote:
If you're making $50,000 and your salary gets down to $40,000 and you have to cut, it's very severe to you," Dlugash said. "But it's no less severe to these other people with these big numbers."

I suspect that the type of cuts you have to make going from $50,000 to $40,000 are different than the cuts you have to make going from $250,000 to $200,000.

You have found the head of the nail, and have hit it as a result.

But how am I going to maintain my $250/day cocaine habit?

My heart is touched by Mr. Schiff's plight. Perhaps these articles will help lift his spirits:

Growing Number of Americans Can't Afford Food

More Americans said they struggled to buy food in 2011 than in any year since the financial crisis, according to a recent report from the Food Research and Action Center, a nonprofit research group. About 18.6 percent of people -- almost one out of every five -- told Gallup pollsters that they couldn't always afford to feed everyone in their family in 2011.

And this...

For America's Least Fortunate, The Grip Of Poverty Spans Generations

I might get some scorn but I know where these guys are coming from. I've lived on both sides of the fence. My father worked on wall street for about 15 years, becoming the youngest ever member of the board in his investment firm. I went to the private school mentioned in the article. I lived in a 2 story brownstone in Brooklyn. My childhood was very fortunate. However, I wouldn't call my family's spending extravagant. We didn't spend lots of money on clothes, jewelry, or toys. Our tv was around 20 years old, it didn't even have a remote. Some people don't quite realize the cost of living in New York City. My family spent a large amount, I won't deny that, but most of it was for my education and the mortgage to the house.

After black monday and Japan's stock market crash my dad's income was severely cut and we were scraping by, I remember a couple of Christmases where I didn't get any presents. Imagine that, a kid going to an elite prep school living in a brownstone without any Christmas presents. Those were some difficult times. I'm sure it strained my parents relationship. Whether it directly led to their divorce I can't say for certain but it definitely didn't help.

I also was making a very good living for a few years in New York, but much of my income went to rent and expenses. I was spending almost half of my income on rent and utilities alone. When the tech bubble burst my income was cut in half almost overnight. I was able to adjust because I was single, but I'm not sure what I would have done were I married with kids. It would have been devastating.

I hate people who think they're entitled to the money as much as the next guy, but these guys didn't come off that way. They seem just worried about how they're going to be able to support their family now that their salary has been drastically reduced. Wouldn't any husband and father have the same concerns?

Right. The same douche bags that led to thousands upon thousands of foreclosures on family homes, either directly or indirectly, have it rough because their kids might have to go to public school and they have to move to a smaller home in a market where home prices are depressed. Boo f*cking hoo.

It's gotta be rough having to actually give something up just because you don't have enough money. It's almost like you're a normal person.

Trainwreck:

I think the difference is in where Agent nails it. I don't think you're entitled to say you've seen "both sides of the fence," until your parents have to decide on whether to buy you food or pay for your clothes because without them you're in danger of freezing to death.

Granted, I haven't been in a situation where I was ever in danger of freezing to death, but I have had to cut meals in my childhood because education was more important. This is in a country where salt on rice is considered good enough to get by, and people regularly get by on two meals a day without even considering it as a particular hardship. I still consider myself fortunate and don't think I have a special right to say I've been "on the other side," because I've never been forced to beg for food, or go homeless for a few days.

The worry these guys are experiencing are purely ego and status oriented. If you ask me, they could all benefit from having their income cut to literally nothing for a few years.

I can see where this guy is coming from.

10 years ago I made less money annually than I had college loans. 2002 seth would consider me a rich mofo.

Now, I make quite a bit more money, but I still worry about finances. I can only extrapolate that those worries continue as obligations rise with compensation.

The counterpoint is that I have calculated exactly how much compensation I would need annually to feel worry free, and it's a lot less than he makes....but then I don't have kids or a condo in brooklyn.

I feel like I'm not getting my point into text accurately. I just think responsibilities tend to increase with income, so a sharp drop in income would lead to concern regardless of where you are on the socioeconomic scale.

Sigh. These guys should have seen a drop in income all along, just like the rest of America. Scratch that - the financial industry for its hubris and idiocy should have seen the types of firings and layoffs that would make the auto industry feel sorry for them. But hey, hardworking honest union workers are forced to live in the street and the hucksters get to keep everything except their bonuses.

My criteria for extending sympathy to another person are not so much about things like an objective assessment of whether their conditions warrant it, but is more about things like the kind of sympathy *they* have been willing to extend to others. It's easy for me to feel sympathy for someone who is stressed out over having to disappoint their kids no matter what the situation.

Honestly, I think a lot of Americans could do with a little *more* of their attitude towards the economic responsibilities involved in having kids.

Seth wrote:

I can see where this guy is coming from.

10 years ago I made less money annually than I had college loans. 2002 seth would consider me a rich mofo.

Now, I make quite a bit more money, but I still worry about finances. I can only extrapolate that those worries continue as obligations rise with compensation.

The counterpoint is that I have calculated exactly how much compensation I would need annually to feel worry free, and it's a lot less than he makes....but then I don't have kids or a condo in brooklyn.

I feel like I'm not getting my point into text accurately. I just think responsibilities tend to increase with income, so a sharp drop in income would lead to concern regardless of where you are on the socioeconomic scale.

I disagree with that on a fundamental level, and I think a lot of the people who take issue with rich guys whining like this do, too. Don't get me wrong, I can see why he's worried and how that might come to be. I just think it's because he lacks perspective and has overentitlement issues.

Luxuries rise with income. Necessities do not. Overly rich guys can get those mixed up, particularly when they have never experienced what it is to be poor; they have no sympathy for the less fortunate because they don't know what it's like. They're like medieval nobles in that. "Let them eat cake!" right?

What it really comes down to, is that your basic responsibilities are to keep yourself and your family healthy, educated, and productive. That's it. Anything beyond that is a luxury, regardless of how it may seem. It may seem like it's your fatherly responsibility to make sure that your kid has a Christmas Tree and gifts from Santa Claus, but really, it's not. Those are luxuries, even excesses, that many people in the world cannot possibly afford. Your responsibility is to make sure he doesn't starve to death and doesn't freeze to death. There are kids who do, and fathers who cannot meet those basic responsibilities through no fault of their own.

Kid doesn't have a Santa gift for Christmas? That's sad? No, that's good. He's alive and he's healthy enough to worry about gifts. Sad is a kid dying from complications of severe protein deficiency on Christmas because his parents can't find any work anywhere, and the land isn't fertile enough to grow anything edible.

Larry nails it.