3 ms·

It’s not really about liberal versus conservative. Their livelihood depends on the federal government maintaining a certain consistent laxity in financial regul

It’s not really about liberal versus conservative. Their livelihood depends on the federal government maintaining a certain consistent laxity in financial regulation; unfortunately, it seems like consistent strictness in regulation will be necessary to make real progress on climate change. This theory of mine explains their post-2016 depression, I think. Everyone knew he would make chaotic policies and wild card political appointments. I’m sure he was horrid for their bottom line. But yeah, I could be wrong. Never really got in with that crowd for some reason. If GS’ charitable arm has given some reasonable fraction of their pool to green charities or something, I’ll change my mind.

tootie 3y ago
I think you're missing what we're getting at. OP was talking about rank and file employees. 99% of people who work at Goldman Sachs don't really give a shit what's good for Goldman Sachs. A substantial percentage actively dislike their employer, but just want a nice paycheck. They are people working a job. Like 1/4 of GS employees are technologists. They don't know or care about how climate regulation affects their business. In fact, a lot of employees jobs are mitigating compliance risk so they literally depend on onerous regulation to stay employed. I'd wager a substantial percentage of GS employees don't even know how to trade stocks.
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  I find it really hard to believe that even a mere “technologist” wouldn’t understand how their bread gets buttered, but maybe they’re even less engaged than I’ve heard & seen. I think we’re starting to talk past each other, but for the sake of pointing out where we seemingly agree: GS employees are more-or-less self-interested, and they do depend on gaming (or mitigating risk, I suppose) regulations to stay employed. Neither of those make great bullet points on a green tech pivot resume, which was more or less my original point? I brought up their charitable org specifically because I recall an acquaintance who works there saying it was more employee-driven than the average corporate tax amelioration scheme. Maybe he was wrong? He’s only been there for five years or so.

tootie 3y ago

I think you're missing what we're getting at. OP was talking about rank and file employees. 99% of people who work at Goldman Sachs don't really give a shit what's good for Goldman Sachs. A substantial percentage actively dislike their employer, but just want a nice paycheck. They are people working a job. Like 1/4 of GS employees are technologists. They don't know or care about how climate regulation affects their business. In fact, a lot of employees jobs are mitigating compliance risk so they literally depend on onerous regulation to stay employed. I'd wager a substantial percentage of GS employees don't even know how to trade stocks.

thebooktocome 3y ago
I find it really hard to believe that even a mere “technologist” wouldn’t understand how their bread gets buttered, but maybe they’re even less engaged than I’ve heard & seen. I think we’re starting to talk past each other, but for the sake of pointing out where we seemingly agree: GS employees are more-or-less self-interested, and they do depend on gaming (or mitigating risk, I suppose) regulations to stay employed. Neither of those make great bullet points on a green tech pivot resume, which was more or less my original point? I brought up their charitable org specifically because I recall an acquaintance who works there saying it was more employee-driven than the average corporate tax amelioration scheme. Maybe he was wrong? He’s only been there for five years or so.