Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#40 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
A lot of Wall Street bankers work very hard to be where they are today, by putting in thousands of hours to learn their industry and have complete dedication to what they do. A lot of bankers work between 12 to 16 hours a day for up to 6 days a week. Non stop. Most of them don't actually earn that much more per hour than their counterparts in alternate industries, but they just earn more due to this huge amount of work. Meanwhile some hipsters who are snapping photos and making "art" think they deserve to be paid the same for doing what most people regard more as a hobby rather than a job. Quite simply you get what you work for, or at least in my opinion.
User avatar #118 to #40 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
As that may be I and I agree with you to an extent, but among those bankers at Wall Street, a lot of there are involved in some sort of international corruption.
#91 to #40 - thamuz ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
Yes. And most people who go into those jobs don't do it because they love it. They want it to get rich. Same goes for accountants. I have never met an accountant who actually loves their job.

So no,Wall Street doesn't get any respect or love from me. Especially when those bankers companies got so large that they couldn't stand up anymore.
User avatar #51 to #40 - Shiny (07/06/2013) [-]
The janitor that cleans the bank's offices works hard, too. Where's his six figure salary?
User avatar #54 to #51 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
Of course, but he is doing a job anyone can do. How much time and money has he invested in becoming qualified for the job? Not much. Also how does a janitor bring in profit for the company? He doesn't. That's why he earns less. It may seem harsh, but you are valued by how indispensable you are to a company.
User avatar #55 to #54 - Shiny (07/06/2013) [-]
So,what you're saying is, there's far more to success than sheer effort? Thank you for proving my point.
User avatar #57 to #55 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
Of course, the key to success is knowledge, not effort. I, for example, can put a lot of effort into something, but if it's still **** at the end I'm worth absolutely nothing more than what I was to begin with.
User avatar #58 to #57 - Shiny (07/06/2013) [-]
And absolutely everyone has access to this kind of knowledge, and the opportunity to make use of it?
User avatar #61 to #58 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
I know that it is extremely tough for a lot of people to gain that knowledge, but I maintain my belief that where there's a will there's a way. Clearly the likes of poor Africans have basically no chance of a decent income, but if you are priveledged to be born in the US or UK then you shouldn't sulk about it - you should make use of the opportunities granted to you to earn a decent wage, and then you can help those who are poor. This is at least what I like to think I live by.
#67 to #61 - victorianfancyman (07/06/2013) [-]
So what you're trying to say is that the Janitor wasted his life and is essentially replaceable cattle who should have 'known better'?
User avatar #70 to #67 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
There is far more to life than just your wages. Nonetheless, whether you like it or not, finding a new janitor to replace the old is not going to be hard.
User avatar #63 to #61 - Shiny (07/06/2013) [-]
Help the poor? The poor and middle class can't even help themselves. The strong employer's market makes getting, keeping and advancing in a job extremely difficult, if not outright impossible for many people; meanwhile, the cost of living keeps on rising and the middle class is expected to carry a disproportionately high amount of the tax burden.

Nobody cares that Wall Street bankers make a lot of money. They care that they get obscene tax cuts as a thank you for being "job creators".
User avatar #73 to #63 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
I'll be honest, I wasn't really aware that bankers got any kind of tax cuts compared to the normal population. I thought people were just annoyed that bankers were earning a lot more money, and getting huge bonuses, etc. In this resepct I agree with you - they should have no preferential treatment with respect to income tax payments compared to anyone else. It is a business, not a charity.
User avatar #68 to #63 - KazumaKyu (07/06/2013) [-]
This. I don't really give a **** that bankers and the like are making a lot of money, I'm just pissed that they aren't paying their fair share. Thing is, I also really don't care that they're creating jobs--I pay my taxes in full, so why the **** aren't they? A bank isn't a charity organization!
#83 to #68 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
User avatar #44 to #40 - godtherapist (07/06/2013) [-]
It is about the inequality of the taxation and distribution of wealth. Not a direct attack on an individual basis.
User avatar #53 to #44 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
Here in the UK the income tax hit 50% for the upper boundary (£150,000+ pa) and it basically pissed off a lot of people, and to be honest I kind of feel for them. Just because you earn more, you now have to pay a lot more tax. My problem is not with the bankers themselves, it's with the government spending a ******** of money on completely unneccesary and idiotic things rather than helping the underpriveledged.
User avatar #72 to #53 - KazumaKyu (07/06/2013) [-]
No, don't increase the % tax for the upper boundary, but don't decrease it either. They should pay the exact same percentage that I do, and they should not be given these ridiculous tax cuts. Giving tax cuts to those who should logically be taking on a larger share of the burden (and can afford to do so) means that burden suddenly falls on me instead. Seeing as I'm not making money hand over fist like the ceo of some bank, that makes it extremely hard to go from day to day.
User avatar #42 to #40 - sanguinesolitude (07/06/2013) [-]
consider the following. Most of Wall street is based on stock trading and currency trading, which basically involves trading control of imaginary bits of companies or money rapidly to maximize profit. Its basically high end gambling. Nothing is produced, nobody apart from the bankers involved are helped by it, its just using money to make more money.

Hipsters dont deserve to make more money. But its pretty messed up that just having money gives you the opportunity to make massive profits without actually producing anything of value.

A banker and a wall street banker tend to be very different things. Most bankers try to help their customers, wall street tries to create new and innovative ways to profit off consumers often at the cost of the economy and the well being of said consumers.
User avatar #47 to #42 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
True, but although you cannot physically touch what you have bought, you do own part of a company by buying shares, which you sell later to make a profit. Sort of how you might buy a digital version of a game, but then sell it on to another person. Of course this is a gross simplification of what actually happens, but it is the main principle behind it; buy cheap, sell for profit. Just saying.
User avatar #48 to #47 - sanguinesolitude (07/06/2013) [-]
I have no problem with bankers. But what wall street does would be illegal in most western countries, or at the least heavily regulated.

Providing capital to businesses is a worthwhile pursuit of the banks, maximizing profit and inventing new strategies to use money to create money.

heck even the bible was against Usury, not that i'm a believer. an example is Ezekian 18:13 (he who) lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
User avatar #59 to #48 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
Here I agree with you completely. The amount of money banks rob you of, because that is the only word that can be used, by simply giving out loans is despicable and quite honestly disgusts me. The amount of lives that have been ruined by loans that have already been paid, but with horrendous interest also attached, is just too much to count. There should be no money made from simply lending money.
User avatar #60 to #59 - sanguinesolitude (07/06/2013) [-]
yep. well interest is ok. But selling shares in loans and using carried interest and all the other weird strategies they create just seems wrong.
User avatar #62 to #60 - MasterManiac (07/06/2013) [-]
For me it's fine when dealing with stock, but when it comes to messing with other people's money and giving out loans, there certainly exists an ethical boundary that a lot of people seem to ignore.
User avatar #64 to #62 - sanguinesolitude (07/06/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)