4 ms·

I've worked in finance. There are all types. Sure, there are asshole alpha traders who whine about $2 million bonuses. Those guys are pretty uncommon, they're d

I've worked in finance. There are all types. Sure, there are asshole alpha traders who whine about $2 million bonuses. Those guys are pretty uncommon, they're disliked even in spite of their P&L, and no one helps them when they get unlucky. There are also people who don't think or live very differently from respectable professors-- except who have $12 million in their bank account instead of $12. There some pathological "wealth addicts" in finance, but not that many; and there are far more in the VC-funded startup world. (VC-istan is essentially Wall Street with a lower talent level and worse ethics.) I used to think it was a negative that Europe doesn't have the same "class" mobility. If you're rich in Germany or England, you're still considered middle-class. Politicians don't worship you, your kids still have to work hard if they are to attend good schools, et cetera. (The "upper classes" are hereditary aristocracies that have lost 80-95% of their wealth, privilege, and relevance.) You can't become upper-class if you weren't born into it, but the flip side of that is that middle-class people can rise quite high. (There's less mobility in social class, but more in terms of things that actually matter-- economic well-being, access to education, etc.) The sickness of the US is that we unify wealth, power, privilege, fame, and social connections by creating an efficient market through which people can trade one for another. Instead of having a society where some people have more money and some have less, we have this toxic arrangement where some people are just implicitly held to be universally better. The issue for the OP (who sounds like a self-indulgent twat, to be honest) is that he learned the hard way that making more money didn't make him a better person-- at all. It didn't make him smarter, happier, or anything else. He met his God and saw vapor. The sad thing is that he's still better off than any of us. If he wants to start a hedge fund tomorrow, or raise a $5-million seed round for whatever project he wants to take on, he's got the credibility to do it. If he doesn't feel like working hard, he could probably use his VC connections as a cash cow by funding young startup kids on a shoestring while taking an unreasonable percentage in equity (although that's been done before).

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Class in the UK is not solely about money. You can be upper class and living in a homeless hostel, doesn't happen much but possible. You can be working class and be a multi-millionaire. It's about heritage and social [inter]actions as much as it's about money. Class doesn't really feature in how much "better" you're perceived to be either. Some Lords are highly benevolent, clued in and useful members of society that treat their privilege as a blessing rather than a right; others are completely obsessed with themselves or disregard those without similar means. Similar contrasts can be found at other points in the spectrum of class.
- untog 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was saying. That in the UK money and 'class' are separate, wheras in the US they are all bundled into one.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    It's the same way in the States too. If you look, you can tell what background a rich or poor person came from. It's just that we don't look as much.
tessierashpool 13y ago
> There's less mobility in social class quick point of fact, this used to be true but is no longer the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to...
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Income and class mobility aren't the same thing. In the UK, you can be born middle-class and become rich, and that's easier than in the US, but you'll still be considered "middle class". Upper is something you're born into. But the flip side is that almost no one cares about "upper class". My point is that the UK arrangement is better. The well-connected, the powerful, the wealthy and the hereditary upper class are different sets of people. In the US, they're the same set and it's a disaster.
lxlxlxlxl 13y ago
He started his own site. From the bottom of the article -- "Sam Polk is a former hedge-fund trader and the founder of the nonprofit Groceryships." http://groceryships.com/ http://groceryships.com/
javajosh 13y ago
>If he doesn't feel like working hard, he could probably use his VC connections as a cash cow... Actually, if he doesn't feel like working hard, it sounds like he could retire on a comfortable 6-figure income for the rest of his life. Without interest, naively $6m will yield $100k a year for 60 years, which is more than enough to raise a large family in a nice neighborhood anywhere in the states - especially if the home and taxes are paid for.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  $100K/year with a "large" (lets say 4 kids?) family in Manhattan will not be very comfortable or nice.
  - nilkn 13y ago
    This is silly. You'd be retired. You could go anywhere you want, unbound by the location of some office. You'd have almost no reason whatsoever to stay in Manhattan other than a desire to burn through all your money and raise your kids in an apartment rather than a house with a yard. There are plenty of cities in the US where a $100k income would afford a very nice middle-class or even upper-middle-class lifestyle.
- vacri 13y ago
  Without interest, 100k/year now is a lot, but in 60 years will be very, very little. Have a look at average salaries now compared to 60 years ago - from memory it's a little over a factor of 10 difference.
  - smileysteve 13y ago
    I think that he left out any interest just to make the statement simple, obvious, and to avoid contest. I'd be willing to bet that somebody from a background in Wall Street and derivatives markets is not going to stuff their cash under the mattress. If you want a complex statement that can be challenged, 10%/year on that $3.6mln last bonus would result in $360k pre tax.
  - vehementi 13y ago

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Class in the UK is not solely about money. You can be upper class and living in a homeless hostel, doesn't happen much but possible. You can be working class and be a multi-millionaire. It's about heritage and social [inter]actions as much as it's about money. Class doesn't really feature in how much "better" you're perceived to be either. Some Lords are highly benevolent, clued in and useful members of society that treat their privilege as a blessing rather than a right; others are completely obsessed with themselves or disregard those without similar means. Similar contrasts can be found at other points in the spectrum of class.

untog 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was saying. That in the UK money and 'class' are separate, wheras in the US they are all bundled into one.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  It's the same way in the States too. If you look, you can tell what background a rich or poor person came from. It's just that we don't look as much.

tessierashpool 13y ago

> There's less mobility in social class quick point of fact, this used to be true but is no longer the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to...

michaelochurch 13y ago
Income and class mobility aren't the same thing. In the UK, you can be born middle-class and become rich, and that's easier than in the US, but you'll still be considered "middle class". Upper is something you're born into. But the flip side is that almost no one cares about "upper class". My point is that the UK arrangement is better. The well-connected, the powerful, the wealthy and the hereditary upper class are different sets of people. In the US, they're the same set and it's a disaster.

lxlxlxlxl 13y ago

He started his own site. From the bottom of the article -- "Sam Polk is a former hedge-fund trader and the founder of the nonprofit Groceryships." http://groceryships.com/ http://groceryships.com/

javajosh 13y ago

>If he doesn't feel like working hard, he could probably use his VC connections as a cash cow... Actually, if he doesn't feel like working hard, it sounds like he could retire on a comfortable 6-figure income for the rest of his life. Without interest, naively $6m will yield $100k a year for 60 years, which is more than enough to raise a large family in a nice neighborhood anywhere in the states - especially if the home and taxes are paid for.

gaadd33 13y ago
$100K/year with a "large" (lets say 4 kids?) family in Manhattan will not be very comfortable or nice.
- nilkn 13y ago
  This is silly. You'd be retired. You could go anywhere you want, unbound by the location of some office. You'd have almost no reason whatsoever to stay in Manhattan other than a desire to burn through all your money and raise your kids in an apartment rather than a house with a yard. There are plenty of cities in the US where a $100k income would afford a very nice middle-class or even upper-middle-class lifestyle.
vacri 13y ago
Without interest, 100k/year now is a lot, but in 60 years will be very, very little. Have a look at average salaries now compared to 60 years ago - from memory it's a little over a factor of 10 difference.
- smileysteve 13y ago
  I think that he left out any interest just to make the statement simple, obvious, and to avoid contest. I'd be willing to bet that somebody from a background in Wall Street and derivatives markets is not going to stuff their cash under the mattress. If you want a complex statement that can be challenged, 10%/year on that $3.6mln last bonus would result in $360k pre tax.
- vehementi 13y ago