4 ms·
Family Money and Financial Innovation
- ryandrake 10y ago> I guess I don't understand the limiting principle there. Like, why give the bad guy $20,000 at all? Why not zero him, or fire him on the spot? Also, I feel like $3 million is a nice round number for a bonus? Whereas $3.005 million is ... some sort of weird signaling? If you worked at Bear Stearns back in the day, and you got a bonus of $3,005,000, was that especially satisfying? Was that, like, "I made $3 million, and I crushed the spirit of a guy who really needed an extra $5,000 but who just didn't perform?" What if you got $3,030,000? Was that, like, "sweet, six scalps"? Bear was an amazing place. Wow, sounds like a sociopath's paradise to me.
- sandworm101 10y agoAs Archer would say "Rich people problems". They really do bicker and fight over the pennies. When you already have more money than you need, competition becomes more important than the actual numbers. It's like seeing someone drive to Whole Foods in a 200,000$ SUV only to get into an argument with the cashier over whether the artisanal honey was market at 5 or 10% off. He or she doesn't car about the money. It's about winning.
- mamurphy 10y agoWhat point is this article trying to make? Usually one can get a sense what the author's perspective is, but not here. It seems to be "here are some odd financial occurrences." Perhaps the inference readers are meant to make is that something is wrong with this consolidation of wealth and power? The handpicked examples evoke disquiet, yet it's hard to pinpoint why. "People with lots of money use it to exert influence,"isn't unsettling on its face. Austin wanted Uber and Lyft to fingerprint drivers or leave town. They left. Should we be upset? Afraid? Reading the next link on Hacker News?