Why Isn't Wall Street In Jail?(Rolling Stone Article)

[FaninAma]

Spot on article about the biggest heist in the history of the world.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=1

Now, let a lowly government employe embezzle a couple of thousand dollars and it's front page news and the culprit gets jail time.

This country is F'd to the max. The clock is ticking and it is just a matter of time until it implodes.

[JohnnyMack]

Hi Fan.

[jkjsooner]

While I think there are plenty that deserve to go to jail, I think the majority of them were just stupid idiots. They had their sophisticated computer models that showed that everything was going to fine but they weren't smart enough to back up a little and really think about the assumptions those computer models took.

For example, we heard over and over again that company XYZ's models show that they will be secure as long as there isn't a nationwide decline in housing prices and since there's never been a nationwide decline in housing prices everything is good. Very few people took a step back to look at how their own behavior led to an unsustainable housing bubble that in turn led to a breakdown of sustainable housing affordability which in turn broke the basic assumptions in their computer models.

Actually, quite a few people did see this coming but they were generally ignored by those who couldn't see the obvious big picture.

I'm sure there were plenty whose bonus structures persuaded them to be willfully ignorant but it seems there were plenty who were just simply ignorant. Unfortunately stupidity isn't a crime.

Then we get to the bailouts. Bush/Paulson/Geithner/Obama ahd a choice. Let a cascading failure occur in the banks which would have led us into another Great Depression or try to prop the system up long enough for stability to return. All of the above were surpised at the fallout when they let Lehman Brothers fail. The results of that decision left them to believe that they could not allow that to happen again.

It's easy to be critical of the move they made as long as we're not responsible for the fallout of not making that move. These guys were responsible for the fallout and they felt like they were forced to make unpopular moves.

Geithner has said that he wished he had the power to return stability without rewarding the bankers. His legal experts basically told him he had no options. He could either make the banks whole or let them fail and deal with the consequences.

Did Geithner and Paulson protect their buddies? Maybe. The whole episode is sickening.

[Position Limit]

my experience with the sec and self regulatory organizations are that they're out manned and quick to settle. the sec discovers a violation and charges the individual or firm with some sort of fine and punishment. punishment is usually a suspension from conducting business in a broker/dealer account. the firm comes back with a compromise and pays the fine only. kind of like what happened in the goldman $550 million settlement.
the sec, like most things in this country, is totally reactionary and usually far overreaches in any attempts to regulate markets. a perfect example of this is the banning of short selling during the crises and at the same time not allowing an exemption for option market makers selling puts to the public. the result? mile wide markets and little liquidity. now the aftermath of this since short selling has obviously been reinstated is a total cluster****. all short sales are subject to pre location of stock, and the banks holding the stock can charge upwards of 100% annualized interest and the customer lending the stock out sees none of it. all because of this knee jerk rule put in place. it's one tiny example i know, but i think it indicative of the agency as a whole.
and dont even get me started on self regulatory organizations.

[Ike]

Actually, quite a few people did see this coming but they were generally ignored by those who couldn't see the obvious big picture.

I'm sure there were plenty whose bonus structures persuaded them to be willfully ignorant but it seems there were plenty who were just simply ignorant. Unfortunately stupidity isn't a crime.



The thing about the people that did see it coming: While you may know that a crash is on the way, predicting the timing of the crash is impossible. Someone who saw it coming in 2005 (and there were some who were predicting a housing crash at that time, as the evidence of a bubble was there), and took a short position on housing and mortgage backed securities...that person would have lost a lot of money, because 2006 and 2007 saw the bubble get far bigger.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- often attributed to JMK

[jkjsooner]

The thing about the people that did see it coming: While you may know that a crash is on the way, predicting the timing of the crash is impossible. Someone who saw it coming in 2005 (and there were some who were predicting a housing crash at that time, as the evidence of a bubble was there), and took a short position on housing and mortgage backed securities...that person would have lost a lot of money, because 2006 and 2007 saw the bubble get far bigger.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- often attributed to JMK

That is so true. This bubble lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.

[Position Limit]

The thing about the people that did see it coming: While you may know that a crash is on the way, predicting the timing of the crash is impossible. Someone who saw it coming in 2005 (and there were some who were predicting a housing crash at that time, as the evidence of a bubble was there), and took a short position on housing and mortgage backed securities...that person would have lost a lot of money, because 2006 and 2007 saw the bubble get far bigger.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -- often attributed to JMK

and goldmans timing for unloading once again was better than everyone else!!!!

[StoopTroup]

I posted a Rolling Stone Article about Goldman Sachs and I believe the tone was that anyone who reads Rolling Stone is a Commie Bill Mayer Liberal.

What's funny is so many of these folks who were in a position to play with everyone in Americas retirement and investment and the worth of the most dear possession (their home) were basically allowed to walk away with bonuses and there wasn't anyone to really blame as basically everyone is guilty of being greedy. Thus there is no recourse but to suck it up and move on.

Now we all sit here sucking it up and the current political power is continuing to make moves that will require most everyone who's future was nearly ruined, to suck it up even more and help pay off the huge debt that they created. The few basically lived like rock stars for 2 decades and the many get to pay for it.

Now small businesses continue to struggle while Corporations they serve make up their own rules of business. Everyone is doing it...so we should too.

Wouldn't it be cool to know that if you are paying taxes and expected to also pay your bills every 28 days, that Corporations and huge Conglomerates were required to play by the same set of rules? What if the Corporations had Credit Ratings that other businesses could report them to when they didn't pay their debts? Of course such a system would probably be communist...lol

[soonercruiser]

Spot on article about the biggest heist in the history of the world.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=1

Now, let a lowly government employe embezzle a couple of thousand dollars and it's front page news and the culprit gets jail time.

This country is F'd to the max. The clock is ticking and it is just a matter of time until it implodes.

Aren't a lot of these Wall Street executives now in the Obama cabinet or administration?
Just sayin'.......:rolleyes:

Wall Street and the labor unions are Obama and the Dem's Haliburton!

[Jammin']

Aren't a lot of these Wall Street executive now in the Obama cabinet or administration?
Just sayin'.......:rolleyes:

Wall Street and the labor unions are Obama and the Dem's Haliburton!

You need to read the Goldman Sachs article Troop mentions above. Wall Street and Goldman Sach's are well above being labeled as a particular party. The **** everyone, regardless of political affiliation and have for around a century.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Which is why they should have gone down in a blaze of glory.

Who's more guilty, the child acting up or the parents telling them, "don't do that" while giving them a cookie?

[Jammin']

Which is why they should have gone down in a blaze of glory.

Who's more guilty, the child acting up or the parents telling them, "don't do that" while giving them a cookie?

I don't disagree with that. And I'd argue we should then penalize every administration starting with Hoover (at least). So I guess my issue is saying Wall Street is somehow more tied to Obama and the Democrat's than the Republicans.

[soonercruiser]

I don't disagree with that. And I'd argue we should then penalize every administration starting with Hoover (at least). So I guess my issue is saying Wall Street is somehow more tied to Obama and the Democrat's than the Republicans.

Who said "more"??????
"The other guys did it" (like the dog ate my homework) is no excuse for bad behavior!

[Position Limit]

I posted a Rolling Stone Article about Goldman Sachs and I believe the tone was that anyone who reads Rolling Stone is a Commie Bill Mayer Liberal.

What's funny is so many of these folks who were in a position to play with everyone in Americas retirement and investment and the worth of the most dear possession (their home) were basically allowed to walk away with bonuses and there wasn't anyone to really blame as basically everyone is guilty of being greedy. Thus there is no recourse but to suck it up and move on.



how was goldman playing with americas reitrement and home values?

[Position Limit]

Aren't a lot of these Wall Street executive now in the Obama cabinet or administration?
Just sayin'.......:rolleyes:

Wall Street and the labor unions are Obama and the Dem's Haliburton!

are you serious? does the name hank paulson mean anything to you?

[Jammin']

Who said "more"??????
"The other guys did it" (like the dog ate my homework) is no excuse for bad behavior!

I see you didn't say "more". But to suggest that BO and his admin are tied to Goldman like GWB and his admin were to Halliburton is, IMO, an incorrect analogy. Goldman has had their former big wigs go on to prominent federal positions for decades and decades and decades. Halliburton was tied, pretty directly to that particular admin. (I certainly may have missed how Halliburton was tied to former Dem admins though, kindly enlighten if so.)

[FaninAma]

I think some of you are missing the point of the article. You are falling into the trap of looking at what the politicians did AFTER the fact(ie. the economic implosion.) I disagree with the decisions to sweep this under the rug with the excuse that they(the governemnt) had to do something to prevent a bigger meltdown) but being focused on and accepting the "national crisis" excuse allows them to coverup what went on beforehand that led to the crisis.

The article essentially makes the claim that there is a culture within the government and on Wall Street that allows the behavior to take place that led up to the last financial meltdown and since that climate was left intact it will happen again....sooner rather than later. Both political parties tolerate the behavior and encourage it by not enforcing existing rules against he Wall Street elites and as long as we persist in being pawns in their silly partisan smokescreen we are doomed to failure in our efforts to change the system. This makes it an alomost 100% certainty that we are doomed to see a collapse of our economy and way of life as the next tidal wave of defaulting debt and bad investment practices crash down on the country.

The really sh*tty thing is that it will be our children and grandchildren who suffer the most because we were too lazy and shortsighted to demand better from the vultures that thrive on sucking the middle class taxpayers clean.

It is also daminng evidence that this country has strayed far from it's Constitutional moorings of equality and independence from a ruling class.

[yermom]

in my limited exposure to Wall Street it seems like it's way too automated and too focused on the short term

you should have to keep stocks for a year or something and preferential access to trades during off hours seems like a total scam as well.

[Jammin']

I think som of you are missing the point of the article. I think you are falling into the trap of looking at what the politicians did after the fact(ie. the economic implosion.)

The article essentially makes the claim that there is a culture within the government and on Wall Street that allows the behavior to take place that led up to the last financial meltdown and since that climate was left intact it will happen again....sooner rather than later. Both political parties tolerate the behavior and as long as we persist in being pawns in their silly partisan smokescreen we are doomed to failure in our efforts to change the system and thus doomed to see a collapse of our economy and way of life. The really sh*tty thing is that it will be our children and grandchildren who suffer the most because we were too lazy and shortsighted to demand better from these vultures.

It is also daminng evidence that this country has strayed far from it's Constitutional moorings of equality and independence from a ruling class.

Yeah, what he/she said! (wait, did I miss the point? I can't remember which side I decided to argue this time.)

[DIB]

Yeah, what he/she said! (wait, did I miss the point? I can't remember which side I decided to argue this time.)

I think I read that Wall Street is in support of legalization, so...

[Jammin']

I think I read that Wall Street is in support of legalization, so...

Must be why they are in bed with the Democrat's and not the Republicans.

[GKeeper316]

Aren't a lot of these Wall Street executive now in the Obama cabinet or administration?
Just sayin'.......:rolleyes:

Wall Street and the labor unions are Obama and the Dem's Haliburton!

you're a ****in idiot.

[GKeeper316]

Must be why they are in bed with the Democrat's and not the Republicans.

no, they're all buddies with the republicans, so the republicans make sure they dont go to jail so they can make even more money by exploiting a broken financial system brought on by republican legislation (gramm-leach-bliley).

so now, instead of commercial banks loaning money to individuals for homes, cars, and small business development, they are allowed to loan the money to investment banks, who then begin the process of devaluing the existing currency by creating more money by exploiting the fractional reserve system.

so you have the commercial banks and investment banks loaning each other money, and by doing so creating more money on top of what they already have, which keeps them in the black, while the people who were intended to be the recipients of that money in the form of loans, can't finance lunch because the banks aren't willing to take any risk in this economic climate.

[Jammin']

no, they're all buddies with the republicans, so the republicans make sure they dont go to jail so they can make even more money by exploiting a broken financial system brought on by republican legislation (gramm-leach-bliley).

so now, instead of commercial banks loaning money to individuals for homes, cars, and small business development, they are allowed to loan the money to investment banks, who then begin the process of devaluing the existing currency by creating more money by exploiting the fractional reserve system.

so you have the commercial banks and investment banks loaning each other money, and by doing so creating more money on top of what they already have, which keeps them in the black, while the people who were intended to be the recipients of that money in the form of loans, can't finance lunch because the banks aren't willing to take any risk in this economic climate.

Please read my posts in this thread before responding to me again. TIA.

[FaninAma]

in my limited exposure to Wall Street it seems like it's way too automated and too focused on the short term

you should have to keep stocks for a year or something and preferential access to trades during off hours seems like a total scam as well.

I saw an article that essentially stated that technology had turned the markets into one large casino with real time rolling of the dice and roulette wheels as multibillion dollar bets are placed in the equity and derivatives markets.

With gambling there will always be those that want to game the sytem for their own advantage. In the case of Vegas and Atlantic City the House Bank has a vested interest is catching and punishing cheaters in order to keep things fair for other participants and their own fiancial security. In the case of the markets the House Bank ultimately is the taxpayers and we don't have anybody agressively trying to catch and punish the cheaters to keep them from stealing our assets from our own investments(401K's) and the Bank itself when the cheaters' bets go bad.

[StoopTroup]

how was goldman playing with americas reitrement and home values?

If you don't accept that what everyone of those ****s did screwed up our economy...there's no reason for me to even answer you.

Not sure but I think someone in the thread said I need to read the Goldman Sachs article. It's that very article that inspired my original thread about our economy going into the toilet. I'm sure there are always going to be disagreements as to who was to blame but my knowledge of the Federal Banks and who is in charge and who makes the rules or stacks the deck is always going to be debatable. For me...I think once you find the answer to that question you'll do one of two things. You'll either not want to know and go get loaded or Two...you'll read enough that you'll get sick to your stomach when you realize just how it's run. If you are a trusting person you'll think everything is fine and if you're not you think like I do in that nobody should have that kind of unchecked power. It's why I'm surprised we haven't had another Civil War. Differences in money and power sometimes can't be decided by letting the meek know the truth.

[GKeeper316]

how was goldman playing with americas reitrement and home values?

401(k) is an investment account for retirement. most IRAs are these days.

[sperry]

Yay, the law firm I'm going to work for this summer was mentioned!

[Spray]

Taibbi has done a heckuva a job with all those articles. There's actually about 5 or 6 of these worth reading that he's written in the past 2 years.

[Blue]

They privatized the gains and socialized the losses and they are still doing it. We all should feel good and ****ed. Like a blonde reporter in downtown Cairo.

The whole mfer is coming crashing down next though. Then war. Then new system.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

no, they're all buddies with the republicans, so the republicans make sure they dont go to jail so they can make even more money by exploiting a broken financial system brought on by republican legislation (gramm-leach-bliley).

so now, instead of commercial banks loaning money to individuals for homes, cars, and small business development, they are allowed to loan the money to investment banks, who then begin the process of devaluing the existing currency by creating more money by exploiting the fractional reserve system.

so you have the commercial banks and investment banks loaning each other money, and by doing so creating more money on top of what they already have, which keeps them in the black, while the people who were intended to be the recipients of that money in the form of loans, can't finance lunch because the banks aren't willing to take any risk in this economic climate.I expected you to be up in Madison, revolting with your sisters and brothers, against the newly elected Republican Monster Govt.

[jkjsooner]

I expected you to be up in Madison, revolting with your sisters and brothers, against the newly elected Republican Monster Govt.

You ever thought about adding something substantial to the conversation? If you want to talk about Madison, WI, there's a thread for that.

[Sooner5030]

Neither ideology (conservative/liberal) supports crony capitalist and elite high caste State employees writing our legislation...(all in the name of affordable health care, saving grandma and leaving no child behind) to enrich themselves and keep the $$ rolling. It's a Republican/Democrat problem not a conservative/liberal problem. Parties exist more for self preservation than they exist to legislate the conservative/liberal ideals.

GO galt.......opt out........or else just suck it up and numb your depression with the newest IPAD and TV show. That's what the rest of the herd does......sometimes I think being oblivious would be is less depressing.

[GKeeper316]

They privatized the gains and socialized the losses and they are still doing it. We all should feel good and ****ed. Like a blonde reporter in downtown Cairo.

The whole mfer is coming crashing down next though. Then war. Then new system.

if we had any great thinkers like jefferson, madison et al i wouldnt be worried about a revolution and an eventual new government, however im afraid the tea baggers are better armed than anyone else (besides the government they will seek to overthrow) and will install a loose theocracy using their right wing neocon evangelical belief system and enforcing it on the rest of us.

[GKeeper316]

You ever thought about adding something substantial to the conversation? If you want to talk about Madison, WI, there's a thread for that.

much like his namesake, rlimc has no individual thought process, lacks the capacity for abstract thought, and has yet to contribute anything to any political conversation.

he's just a very narrow minded kinda guy who gets caught up in all the us vs them rhetoric. he has nothing good to say about any democrat, and thinks liberalism is about control.

[olevetonahill]

much like his namesake, rlimc has no individual thought process, lacks the capacity for abstract thought, and has yet to contribute anything to any political conversation.

he's just a very narrow minded kinda guy who gets caught up in all the us vs them rhetoric. he has nothing good to say about any democrat, and thinks liberalism is about control.

:rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

I posted a Rolling Stone Article about Goldman Sachs and I believe the tone was that anyone who reads Rolling Stone is a Commie Bill Mayer Liberal.

What's funny is so many of these folks who were in a position to play with everyone in Americas retirement and investment and the worth of the most dear possession (their home) were basically allowed to walk away with bonuses and there wasn't anyone to really blame as basically everyone is guilty of being greedy. Thus there is no recourse but to suck it up and move on.

Now we all sit here sucking it up and the current political power is continuing to make moves that will require most everyone who's future was nearly ruined, to suck it up even more and help pay off the huge debt that they created. The few basically lived like rock stars for 2 decades and the many get to pay for it.

Now small businesses continue to struggle while Corporations they serve make up their own rules of business. Everyone is doing it...so we should too.

Wouldn't it be cool to know that if you are paying taxes and expected to also pay your bills every 28 days, that Corporations and huge Conglomerates were required to play by the same set of rules? What if the Corporations had Credit Ratings that other businesses could report them to when they didn't pay their debts? Of course such a system would probably be communist...lol

Still true. ;)

For some crazy reason I never figured out I got Rolling Stone free for two years. I'm glad the free subscription finally ran out. :P

[jkjsooner]

Which is why they should have gone down in a blaze of glory.

Who's more guilty, the child acting up or the parents telling them, "don't do that" while giving them a cookie?

I agree in part with the first sentence. I think most people would have loved to see these guys go down in a blaze of glory.

Unfortunately, the fallout would have been devastating. Have you sat down to look at what would happen to our economy if Goldman, AIG, JP Morgan, Citibank, etc. would have all gone down in a cascade of failure? You better think about it because that's what would have happened.

A lot of us would be without jobs right now. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The fallout would have been unimaginable. Businesses would have lost all of their short term funding almost overnight.

Because of that I think your question about guilt doesn't apply here. Nobody wanted to give the child a cookie but the consequences of not doing so forced our hand.


Like I said before, it's easy to sit back and say we'd be okay without the bailouts if you're not the one responsible for the fallout had we not had the bailouts. Everyone in power (over two administrations), all from different political persuasions, chose to take the bailout route. Almost every country around the world took this route. I think that says a lot about what their economic advisors were saying about the consequences of doing nothing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

much like his namesake, rlimc has no individual thought process, lacks the capacity for abstract thought, and has yet to contribute anything to any political conversation.

he's just a very narrow minded kinda guy who gets caught up in all the us vs them rhetoric. he has nothing good to say about any democrat, and thinks liberalism is about control.If I wasn't so happy with my current sig, I would use this. It's gold, Jerry.

[pphilfran]

What did we expect? We had weak regulation combined with non existent auditing...

Whose fault was it that Fannie or Freddie bought the questionable loan packages...did they not do a random review of securities in each package?

There are as many people in DC needing to go to jail as their are in the banking and securities industries...

[HBick]

You need to read the Goldman Sachs article Troop mentions above. Wall Street and Goldman Sach's are well above being labeled as a particular party. The **** everyone, regardless of political affiliation and have for around a century.

+1

They don't care if your a conservative or a liberal, dem or gop, they just enjoy bending you over.

I saw this thread the other day and was flipping through and saw the author interviewed on Bill Maher last night after I got home from work. Now I'm not saying I agree with him, but one of his more interesting points referred to what a few of the first posters in the thread mentioned.

I'm a little hazy as what the exact terminology is, but it is pretty evil that these banks sold all these mortgages to pension funds and insurance companies, then after everyone loses money, they are able to go to the Fed and are basically given money at 0% interest, then loan it out to the majority of American's at 5%-10%.

At least that's what I took away from his interview, maybe that's not exactly right, but regardless, it was disturbing.

[HBick]

Wall Street and the labor unions are Obama and the Dem's Haliburton!

Don't labor unions only make up like 7% of the work force now? Whereas in the past they were as high as 30% of the work force?

But while we may not like unions now, aren't they responsible for 8 hour work days and employers offering health insurance?

[GKeeper316]

+1

They don't care if your a conservative or a liberal, dem or gop, they just enjoy bending you over.

I saw this thread the other day and was flipping through and saw the author interviewed on Bill Maher last night after I got home from work. Now I'm not saying I agree with him, but one of his more interesting points referred to what a few of the first posters in the thread mentioned.

I'm a little hazy as what the exact terminology is, but it is pretty evil that these banks sold all these mortgages to pension funds and insurance companies, then after everyone loses money, they are able to go to the Fed and are basically given money at 0% interest, then loan it out to the majority of American's at 5%-10%.

At least that's what I took away from his interview, maybe that's not exactly right, but regardless, it was disturbing.

well, thats the way banks work in the first place. they get money from the fed thats supposed to be loaned out to people and then they apply interest on this money that wasnt theirs in the first place.

its the cycle of perpetual debt. if there wasnt any debt, there wouldnt be any money. every single cent in circulation represents money owed to somebody by somebody else.

[SCOUT]

Don't labor unions only make up like 7% of the work force now? Whereas in the past they were as high as 30% of the work force?

But while we may not like unions now, aren't they responsible for 8 hour work days and employers offering health insurance?

Employers started offering benefits as a way to entice workers to join a company after WWII.

Unions definitely added value, but they are living off of past accomplishments. Their value today is negligible, IMO.

[GKeeper316]

Employers started offering benefits as a way to entice workers to join a company after WWII.

Unions definitely added value, but they are living off of past accomplishments. Their value today is negligible, IMO.

ya cuz i just love when the compnay i work for fires one employee and forces me to take up all his responsibilities without having the opportunity to renegotiate my pay. do it or we'll fire you too.

[MsProudSooner]

I watched a documentary this week about the week after 9/11 in NYC. They took the video of about 30 amateur photographers and intertwined it with interviews with the photographers. It was very good. As I watched it, it occurred to me that while more people died on 9/11, "Wall Street", for lack of a better term, has done more damage to our country as a whole over the past few years. .

[Blue]

if we had any great thinkers like jefferson, madison et al i wouldnt be worried about a revolution and an eventual new government, however im afraid the tea baggers are better armed than anyone else (besides the government they will seek to overthrow) and will install a loose theocracy using their right wing neocon evangelical belief system and enforcing it on the rest of us.

I don't think we'd ever have another revolution in this country. I was just saying that when this global economy comes down (could be 2 years could be 30) we'll see major uprisings and will more than likely have a few wars and they'll sort it out with a new monetary system after that.

[SCOUT]

ya cuz i just love when the compnay i work for fires one employee and forces me to take up all his responsibilities without having the opportunity to renegotiate my pay. do it or we'll fire you too.

I find this funny. If your employer requires you to do more work without giving the opportunity to negotiate your pay, find another job.

I actually had this situation happen to me. I took it for a few months and then voiced my concern. I was told that things would get better and that if I were patient, I would be rewarded. I waited a few more months and nothing happened.

I suppose I could have unionized and staged a walkout, but instead I took my skills and offered them to the job market.

I got a job making about 30% more than I was before and have been here for 10 years.

It doesn't require a union to take personal responsibility for your career.

[GKeeper316]

I find this funny. If your employer requires you to do more work without giving the opportunity to negotiate your pay, find another job.

I actually had this situation happen to me. I took it for a few months and then voiced my concern. I was told that things would get better and that if I were patient, I would be rewarded. I waited a few more months and nothing happened.

I suppose I could have unionized and staged a walkout, but instead I took my skills and offered them to the job market.

I got a job making about 30% more than I was before and have been here for 10 years.

It doesn't require a union to take personal responsibility for your career.

the only problem with that is there are literally 4 places i can work in okc. 4 (ok 5 if you count ksbi, but i'd never work for brady bruce). i did quit my job, but went back to school to retrain and gtfo of the local tv news biz. there's no money in local news anymore. when i started down this path, there was no internet. advertising money and they way products are marketed to the public have changed so drastically in the last 15 years (since i finished school after my 4 years in the corps.) that its forced a whole lot of people to find a new career besides broadcast journalism.

[SCOUT]

the only problem with that is there are literally 4 places i can work in okc. 4 (ok 5 if you count ksbi, but i'd never work for brady bruce). i did quit my job, but went back to school to retrain and gtfo of the local tv news biz. there's no money in local news anymore. when i started down this path, there was no internet. advertising money and they way products are marketed to the public have changed so drastically in the last 15 years (since i finished school after my 4 years in the corps.) that its forced a whole lot of people to find a new career besides broadcast journalism.
I am sorry to hear that.

I must ask the question though. How would a union have changed any of that?

[GKeeper316]

I am sorry to hear that.

I must ask the question though. How would a union have changed any of that?

talent's salaries hasn't taken the hits production has. plus anchor's and reporters job duties have stayed the same. but talent, because they are talent, get to negotiate their pay through contracts that run in 2 year incraments. production doesn't have that luxury.

so while the pie gets smaller, their cut gets bigger and bigger.

[jkjsooner]

ya cuz i just love when the compnay i work for fires one employee and forces me to take up all his responsibilities without having the opportunity to renegotiate my pay. do it or we'll fire you too.

No kidding. My company has laid off so many people that they've really f'ed not only the remaining employees but the company itself. Well, it's a very large company so I won't speak for 99% of it but on the projects I work on we're f'ed. One system, which they're phasing out, probably will end up dying because we no longer have the technical expertise to support it. Unfortunately for our clients, they're still on the system.

Example. We laid off every single DBA we had. Apparently anyone could do the job, right? Well, we had a disk failure on a client testing warehouse database. Nobody left knew that the engineers were not backing up the disks because they were test databases - well test except the clients do client acceptance testing on them. The DBA's who would have known that have long been gone. It's a complete mess and we ought to get our a$$ sued by our clients but, hey, we're saving money, right?

[jkjsooner]

its the cycle of perpetual debt. if there wasnt any debt, there wouldnt be any money. every single cent in circulation represents money owed to somebody by somebody else.

I don't see why this is a problem. This is what makes the world go around.

Let's say I have $100. I loan it to you to get your car fixed. SCOUT fixes your car and you pay him $100. SCOUT then deposits that money in my bank. We've created $100 via debt.

My net worth is $100. I have $100 on hand, I owe SCOUT $100 and you owe me $100.

Your net worth is -$100.

SCOUT's net worth is $100.

It all balances out. Event though we've created wealth, the total net worth balance out to the original $100.

This concept doesn't seem evil at all to me. You were allowed to get your car fixed and SCOUT was allowed to practice his trade and get paid for it.

[yermom]

No kidding. My company has laid off so many people that they've really f'ed not only the remaining employees but the company itself. Well, it's a very large company so I won't speak for 99% of it but on the projects I work on we're f'ed. One system, which they're phasing out, probably will end up dying because we no longer have the technical expertise to support it. Unfortunately for our clients, they're still on the system.

Example. We laid off every single DBA we had. Apparently anyone could do the job, right? Well, we had a disk failure on a client testing warehouse database. Nobody left knew that the engineers were not backing up the disks because they were test databases - well test except the clients do client acceptance testing on them. The DBA's who would have known that have long been gone. It's a complete mess and we ought to get our a$$ sued by our clients but, hey, we're saving money, right?

wow, how do you lay off every DBA?

[MsProudSooner2]

wow, how do you lay off every DBA?

Sounds like jkj works at a company similar to mine. They've also laid off most, if not all of the DBAs. My area used to have 5 people. Since last October, I'm the only one left. I used to have a person who could help out a little bit if i went on vacation, but he left in January. I carry 2 on-call phones 24/7/365. We have a lot of systems w/ minimum technical support. When I say minimum, I mean if they break, the technical folks won't know how to fix them. One area had to pay $300K in fines for missed Service Level agreements in January. The attitude of upper management seems to be that we saved more than that by laying people off, so who cares. There was a time when people laid off in the USA were replaced by people in South America or India. Lately, they are ver slow to do even that. Of course, though it all, upper managemnt gets their exorbitant bonuses.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Only the federal govt. can print money...legally

[SCOUT]

talent's salaries hasn't taken the hits production has. plus anchor's and reporters job duties have stayed the same. but talent, because they are talent, get to negotiate their pay through contracts that run in 2 year incraments. production doesn't have that luxury.

so while the pie gets smaller, their cut gets bigger and bigger.
So the money has gone to those who warrant it most? I am sorry that it has adversely affected you, but why is this a problem?

The average person changes careers every 15 years.

[SCOUT]

Sounds like jkj works at a company similar to mine. They've also laid off most, if not all of the DBAs. My area used to have 5 people. Since last October, I'm the only one left. I used to have a person who could help out a little bit if i went on vacation, but he left in January. I carry 2 on-call phones 24/7/365. We have a lot of systems w/ minimum technical support. When I say minimum, I mean if they break, the technical folks won't know how to fix them. One area had to pay $300K in fines for missed Service Level agreements in January. The attitude of upper management seems to be that we saved more than that by laying people off, so who cares. There was a time when people laid off in the USA were replaced by people in South America or India. Lately, they are ver slow to do even that. Of course, though it all, upper managemnt gets their exorbitant bonuses.

It sounds to me that you and jkj work for companies that aren't going to be successful in the long haul.

It also sounds like you might want to look elsewhere for employment or make your way into upper management. The job market isn't great, but there are definitely companies that are hiring top talent..

[yermom]

the solution is to be in upper management?

why didn't i think of that?

[jkjsooner]

Sounds like jkj works at a company similar to mine. They've also laid off most, if not all of the DBAs. My area used to have 5 people. Since last October, I'm the only one left. I used to have a person who could help out a little bit if i went on vacation, but he left in January. I carry 2 on-call phones 24/7/365. We have a lot of systems w/ minimum technical support. When I say minimum, I mean if they break, the technical folks won't know how to fix them. One area had to pay $300K in fines for missed Service Level agreements in January. The attitude of upper management seems to be that we saved more than that by laying people off, so who cares. There was a time when people laid off in the USA were replaced by people in South America or India. Lately, they are ver slow to do even that. Of course, though it all, upper managemnt gets their exorbitant bonuses.

In a larger organization I'm not even sure if those who make the decision to lay people off really think about the cost associated with it. They lay x% off, show it to their bosses, and get a huge bonus for the "savings." If the company ends up losing contracts and getting sued for not meeting obligations, it's just the fault of whoever is left on the individual project. The senior VP, who knows almost nothing about what we do, is long out of the picture.

[MsProudSooner2]

It sounds to me that you and jkj work for companies that aren't going to be successful in the long haul.

It also sounds like you might want to look elsewhere for employment or make your way into upper management. The job market isn't great, but there are definitely companies that are hiring top talent..

I guess that depends upon how you define success. I'm sure upper managment thinks they are supremely successful.

As far as looking for other jobs, that becomes difficult after a certain age. Most of the people I work with are age 50 or older. Almost none of them chose to come to this company. They were 'acquired' when their former companies were absorbed by this one. Those under 50 have been searching for other jobs at a fast and furious pace. But unless you are willing to relocate, you probably won't find a job that doesn't require a significant pay cut. The older people just hang on until they are either laid off or can afford to retire. It's a lovely work environment.

[jkjsooner]

My company bought a company that does something similar to what we do on my project. We build/host/monitor voice repsonse systems for clients (think telephone banking). The company we bought mostly builds systems / software for clients to host at their own sites. Nevertheless the idea was that we would begin migrating our clients to the new platform once they built up a hosting environment. Add to that the general economic downturn and continued offshoring to India and we've had a lot of layoffs. At some point management forgot that supporting existing clients (some of them very large financial firms) is kind of important.

But, anyway, the company is so large that we barely register on their profit calculations so I wouldn't say the company will go down but I don't have a lot of faith in the ones who are making the decisions for our group. I think I'm fine for now because I'm mostly working on the new platform but I still have to deal with the mess they left with the old platforms.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I guess that depends upon how you define success. I'm sure upper managment thinks they are supremely successful.

As far as looking for other jobs, that becomes difficult after a certain age. Most of the people I work with are age 50 or older. Almost none of them chose to come to this company. They were 'acquired' when their former companies were absorbed by this one. Those under 50 have been searching for other jobs at a fast and furious pace. But unless you are willing to relocate, you probably won't find a job that doesn't require a significant pay cut. The older people just hang on until they are either laid off or can afford to retire. It's a lovely work environment.It's too bad that people don't want to invest in expansion and take risks with their holdings. Wonder why that is? haha.

[Okla-homey]

But while we may not like unions now, aren't they responsible for 8 hour work days and employers offering health insurance?

Not health insurance. That was begun in WWII by employers as a way to skirt federally enforced wage and salary caps in effect for the duration of the war.

You could entice guys to work for you who were already employed elsewhere, despite the fact you couldn't offer them more money, by offering them health benefits. Summarizing, offering health benefits was not labor's idea, it was originally a management scheme to poach workers from the competition, and it ended up being expected by organized labor. We call that a great example of the law of unintended consequences and how you can do something for short term gain that ends up breaking your back 50 years later.

The origin of the eight-hour work day/40 hour work week is a little murkier. But its the law now.

[GKeeper316]

So the money has gone to those who warrant it most? I am sorry that it has adversely affected you, but why is this a problem?

The average person changes careers every 15 years.

you cant do a show without a production staff. if there's an across the board drop in incoming revenue, logic would dictate that there would be a corresponding drop in salary for all employees of the company. that hasnt been the case. production departments in every tv market not unionized have been the worst hit. in markets where nabet (the national assn. of broadcast engineers and technicians) operate they forced (quite fairly) talent and management to take cuts as well as production.

nabet wont touch oklahoma.

[FaninAma]

+1

They don't care if your a conservative or a liberal, dem or gop, they just enjoy bending you over.

I saw this thread the other day and was flipping through and saw the author interviewed on Bill Maher last night after I got home from work. Now I'm not saying I agree with him, but one of his more interesting points referred to what a few of the first posters in the thread mentioned.

I'm a little hazy as what the exact terminology is, but it is pretty evil that these banks sold all these mortgages to pension funds and insurance companies, then after everyone loses money, they are able to go to the Fed and are basically given money at 0% interest, then loan it out to the majority of American's at 5%-10%.

At least that's what I took away from his interview, maybe that's not exactly right, but regardless, it was disturbing.


Hopefully more and more people are figuring this out. Until we demand accountability from both parties, including the ones we vote for, nothing will get better.

The Fed has been involeved in this taxpayer subsidy of the banking cartel since it's inception. Create money out of thin air give it to your banking cartel who then turn around and buy US Treasuires for a quick 3 to 5% profit or loan it out for an even higher profit. And if some of your loans go bad don't sweat it. They have the idiot taxpayers there to make them whole. Sweet deal.

BTW, thanks to the posse member who one-starred the thread. I am so glad you care.

[HBick]

In a larger organization I'm not even sure if those who make the decision to lay people off really think about the cost associated with it. They lay x% off, show it to their bosses, and get a huge bonus for the "savings." If the company ends up losing contracts and getting sued for not meeting obligations, it's just the fault of whoever is left on the individual project. The senior VP, who knows almost nothing about what we do, is long out of the picture.

You mean the Bob's? Who lay people off on a Friday because they're less likely to create a scene?

"What exactly is it you do here?"

And if the Office Space reference is lost on you, please go watch it immediately