8 ms·

Good for him! Now, he can do whatever he wants with his time rather than work for the man, life is short after all.

by rawtxapp 5y ago

op03 5y ago
Goldman employees have no clue what to do with their cash other than multiply it. So expect it all to go into catcoin.
- eru 5y ago
  How many Goldman employees have you met?
  - op03 5y ago
    8
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
I don't know who you think 'the man' is, if it's not a Goldman Sachs executive?
- DevKoala 5y ago
  If you are working for someone other than yourself, you are answering to “the man”.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  If they a quit their job because they have a few extra million then they were working class (ie they needed to work to survive).
  - curiousgal 5y ago
    I would never have imagined referring to a GS executive as someone working to survive lmao It's not all black and white.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      They aren't all working to survive but the ones who are are. Anyone who wants to escape the rat race would take the GS exec job if they were offered it as it speeds up the timeline for them.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    "The man" doesn't have to be rich (but he is), his position is one of power. Money is power, so the man is those on the top floors of institutes dealing with large amounts of money and having gala evenings with politicians and CEOs. That's who the working class person making minimum wage that was just made redundant actually works for. -- Saying that the investor bank executive is working class because he needs to pay his rent is bollocks.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      Working class is anyone who needs to work to survive. The rest (middle class, salary etc) is all a distraction. Pitting poors against poors to leverage power. Either you have enough to live off of your investments 100% or you are working class.
      - 1_player 5y ago
        So the millionaire that's spending $5,000 a week in rent and $50,000 a week to maintain his lifestyle—as it might be required by his job and expected by his peers—is working class? Sorry, it's your definition that is wrong. "Working class" doesn't mean "category of people that work." "When used non-academically in the United States, [...] it often refers to a section of society dependent on physical labour, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. For example, the working class is loosely defined as those without college degrees. Working-class occupations are then categorized into four groups: unskilled labourers, artisans, outworkers, and factory workers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions
        rorykoehler 5y ago
        "Need" is the operative word.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    The leader of the U.K. is having financial difficulties despite his multi million wealth, 6 figure salary and practically free accommodation. Apparently that’s not enough when you have expensive tastes.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      He never quit when he made his millions.... He is motivated by power.
  - 2038AD 5y ago
    That is the most brain-dead class analysis I have ever read. You can't be serious.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      I am deadly serious. There has been a successful multi-decade gaslighting initiative to make people think middle class and working class are different when in fact they are both just working to make the investment class rich. Time is your most valuable asset and unless you own it 100% then you are working class.
      - 2038AD 5y ago
        You're absolutely right in implicitly arguing that social class isn't exactly determined by the amount of money you have. You're also correct that traditionally the proletariat (the working class) were those who sold their labour. By a very strict definition, anyone who earns a wage is working class and that would include CEOs (as you are doing explicitly). That definition is deficient and doesn't relate to reality. Traditionally, the bourgeoisie were the class or classes who employed the workers. The capitalists own the capital and capital goods (means of production) that are used in industry. The petit bourgeoisie are those who own small businesses, such as shopkeepers or lawyers. They were middle class because they were neither working class nor part of the nobility. Today many companies are publicly held. By this, I mean that stakes in the company are sold publicly. Many companies are also part-owned by the public in the sense of state ownership. This kind of relationship would falsely suppose that members of the working class are members of the bourgeoisie. You agree that ownership doesn't exactly determine class since your criterion is the selling of time or labour. Those today who have power over the factors of production are very often employed when previously they employed themselves. You call these people working class. I find that very bizarre. I believe that a managing director of an investment bank is a person who represents capital absolutely. Their job is to head an organisation whose aim is to manage capital and to generate or bring in capital in the process. To identify this person with a factory worker is confused.
        5y ago
SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
Honestly, it seems to me like this may be a case of having some insider knowledge or knowing ahead of time that the coordinated pump and dump was going to occur. Any rational person would have looked at DOGE over the past however many years and seen it for the true joke it was. It barely made any meaningful movement on pricing until very recently. I can understand if someone may have mined it for fun and forgot about it, or some Robinhood user messed about with DOGE, but this feels a bit more unusual to me. Perhaps working at Goldman Sachs afforded him some additional advantage on insight? I'm not sure I could sleep easy at night knowing I fleeced the rubes, but then again, I'm not this gentleman.
- midasuni 5y ago
  Any rational person sees the market is irrational. Putting $10 on dodge back in January, or on spiffcoin today, is no different to putting $10 on a horse at the 3.15, except the excitement probably lasts longer. The bookie wins on aggregate, but you are buying the hope and excitement and that has value.
  - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
    Fair enough. My suspicions could be bunk and this GS employee really just made a leap of faith Hail Mary pass and won this way.

Good for him! Now, he can do whatever he wants with his time rather than work for the man, life is short after all.

op03 5y ago

Goldman employees have no clue what to do with their cash other than multiply it. So expect it all to go into catcoin.

eru 5y ago
How many Goldman employees have you met?
- op03 5y ago
  8

Emma_Goldman 5y ago

I don't know who you think 'the man' is, if it's not a Goldman Sachs executive?

DevKoala 5y ago
If you are working for someone other than yourself, you are answering to “the man”.
rorykoehler 5y ago
If they a quit their job because they have a few extra million then they were working class (ie they needed to work to survive).
- curiousgal 5y ago
  I would never have imagined referring to a GS executive as someone working to survive lmao It's not all black and white.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    They aren't all working to survive but the ones who are are. Anyone who wants to escape the rat race would take the GS exec job if they were offered it as it speeds up the timeline for them.
- 1_player 5y ago
  "The man" doesn't have to be rich (but he is), his position is one of power. Money is power, so the man is those on the top floors of institutes dealing with large amounts of money and having gala evenings with politicians and CEOs. That's who the working class person making minimum wage that was just made redundant actually works for. -- Saying that the investor bank executive is working class because he needs to pay his rent is bollocks.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    Working class is anyone who needs to work to survive. The rest (middle class, salary etc) is all a distraction. Pitting poors against poors to leverage power. Either you have enough to live off of your investments 100% or you are working class.
    - 1_player 5y ago
      So the millionaire that's spending $5,000 a week in rent and $50,000 a week to maintain his lifestyle—as it might be required by his job and expected by his peers—is working class? Sorry, it's your definition that is wrong. "Working class" doesn't mean "category of people that work." "When used non-academically in the United States, [...] it often refers to a section of society dependent on physical labour, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. For example, the working class is loosely defined as those without college degrees. Working-class occupations are then categorized into four groups: unskilled labourers, artisans, outworkers, and factory workers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Definitions
      - rorykoehler 5y ago
        "Need" is the operative word.
- midasuni 5y ago
  The leader of the U.K. is having financial difficulties despite his multi million wealth, 6 figure salary and practically free accommodation. Apparently that’s not enough when you have expensive tastes.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    He never quit when he made his millions.... He is motivated by power.
- 2038AD 5y ago
  That is the most brain-dead class analysis I have ever read. You can't be serious.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    I am deadly serious. There has been a successful multi-decade gaslighting initiative to make people think middle class and working class are different when in fact they are both just working to make the investment class rich. Time is your most valuable asset and unless you own it 100% then you are working class.
    - 2038AD 5y ago
      You're absolutely right in implicitly arguing that social class isn't exactly determined by the amount of money you have. You're also correct that traditionally the proletariat (the working class) were those who sold their labour. By a very strict definition, anyone who earns a wage is working class and that would include CEOs (as you are doing explicitly). That definition is deficient and doesn't relate to reality. Traditionally, the bourgeoisie were the class or classes who employed the workers. The capitalists own the capital and capital goods (means of production) that are used in industry. The petit bourgeoisie are those who own small businesses, such as shopkeepers or lawyers. They were middle class because they were neither working class nor part of the nobility. Today many companies are publicly held. By this, I mean that stakes in the company are sold publicly. Many companies are also part-owned by the public in the sense of state ownership. This kind of relationship would falsely suppose that members of the working class are members of the bourgeoisie. You agree that ownership doesn't exactly determine class since your criterion is the selling of time or labour. Those today who have power over the factors of production are very often employed when previously they employed themselves. You call these people working class. I find that very bizarre. I believe that a managing director of an investment bank is a person who represents capital absolutely. Their job is to head an organisation whose aim is to manage capital and to generate or bring in capital in the process. To identify this person with a factory worker is confused.
      - 5y ago

SwimSwimHungry 5y ago

Honestly, it seems to me like this may be a case of having some insider knowledge or knowing ahead of time that the coordinated pump and dump was going to occur. Any rational person would have looked at DOGE over the past however many years and seen it for the true joke it was. It barely made any meaningful movement on pricing until very recently. I can understand if someone may have mined it for fun and forgot about it, or some Robinhood user messed about with DOGE, but this feels a bit more unusual to me. Perhaps working at Goldman Sachs afforded him some additional advantage on insight? I'm not sure I could sleep easy at night knowing I fleeced the rubes, but then again, I'm not this gentleman.

midasuni 5y ago
Any rational person sees the market is irrational. Putting $10 on dodge back in January, or on spiffcoin today, is no different to putting $10 on a horse at the 3.15, except the excitement probably lasts longer. The bookie wins on aggregate, but you are buying the hope and excitement and that has value.
- SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
  Fair enough. My suspicions could be bunk and this GS employee really just made a leap of faith Hail Mary pass and won this way.