$45 Million to Retrain Investment Bankers

BPSCG · 19th February 2009, 04:01 PM

Link.

Quote:

Under a program unveiled Wednesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, as well as to provide seed capital and offices for new businesses those laid-off bankers might create.

The plan is intended to stem a potential exodus of banking professionals from the city during the restructuring of the financial services industry, which has been the city's economic engine for decades, and to speed the industry's recovery, which will take years, officials said.

City officials also plan to try to lure big banks and financial companies from Asia and elsewhere to set up operations in New York, filling some of the void created by the implosion of large American firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. They hope the federal and state governments will let them use $30 million in federal money to attract those companies and other financial firms.

Bloomberg said that he could not predict how financial services would bounce back, but he said he was confident that they eventually would.

"We can be certain that cities around the world will compete for the jobs that the next revival of the financial services industry will bring," he said.

"The time to begin winning that competition is right now. A big part of that is encouraging innovation and holding onto the talented people who will make it happen."

The mind boggles.

Emphasis mine. How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work?

GreNME · 19th February 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.
The mind boggles.

Emphasis mine. How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work?

My hope is that the new jobs they're trained to do involve flipping burgers. Maybe a few of them are "talented" enough to even make it to fry cook.

TragicMonkey · 19th February 2009, 06:19 PM

They could be trained as prostitutes. It's more honest than what they've been doing, and it's proper work.

GreNME · 19th February 2009, 06:22 PM

What do you mean "could be trained as?"

drkitten · 20th February 2009, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

[ How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work?

Well, like it said in the article, "Bloomberg's own company, Bloomberg LP, may be a model of the type of business the program could spawn." He was originally a banker at Salomon Brothers and is now in the financial information business, not the banking business. And you'll notice Bloomberg himself hasn't left NYC.

Before you let your mind boggle too far, ask yourself whether there are any special skills that an investment banker might have as part of the package that could be applied in "other work." I seem to recall Peter Lynch did okay as a pundit/talking head and as a book author. I think he would also be remarkably good as a teacher at a business school, and I suspect he'd do well designing financial information systems, since he knows exactly what kind of information mutual fund managers need to do their job.

Cleon · 20th February 2009, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

My hope is that the new jobs they're trained to do involve flipping burgers. Maybe a few of them are "talented" enough to even make it to fry cook.

I was thinking "janitorial staff" or perhaps "sewer inspectors."

BPSCG · 20th February 2009, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, like it said in the article, "Bloomberg's own company, Bloomberg LP, may be a model of the type of business the program could spawn." He was originally a banker at Salomon Brothers and is now in the financial information business, not the banking business. And you'll notice Bloomberg himself hasn't left NYC.

Before you let your mind boggle too far, ask yourself whether there are any special skills that an investment banker might have as part of the package that could be applied in "other work." I seem to recall Peter Lynch did okay as a pundit/talking head and as a book author. I think he would also be remarkably good as a teacher at a business school, and I suspect he'd do well designing financial information systems, since he knows exactly what kind of information mutual fund managers need to do their job.

From the article quoted in the OP:

Quote:

the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street,

Do you see problems with that? I see two glaring ones:

1) The city wants to invest...

When a financial adviser says I should invest in something, I want to know what I return can expect for my investment, as expressed in a number followed by a unit of currency.

When a politician says, "We're going to invest," hold on to your wallet, because that's a shorthand way of saying, "We're going to throw some money at a problem and hope it goes away." If the city is going to invest $45 million, what rate of return does it expect?

2) "...$45 million in government money..."

There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers.

ravdin · 20th February 2009, 09:12 AM

I for one might support helping these welfare bums stand on their own two feet. This social safety net is a small investment compared to supporting them on the taxpayers' dime for the rest of their lives.

BPSCG · 20th February 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I for one might support helping these welfare bums stand on their own two feet.

Fine. Write to mayor Bloomberg, ask where to send your check. Why should the taxpayers do it?

Quote:

This social safety net is a small investment compared to supporting them on the taxpayers' dime for the rest of their lives.

There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will ever come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero.

Bloomberg and the rest of New York's politicians are genuinely terrified of the loss of tax revenue. If that's the case, they should make New York City hospitable to business instead of chasing it away with ever-higher taxes. In this electronic age, there's less and less incentive for financial institutions to have their headquarters on Wall Street if they get taxed to death.

These are people who were making six figure salaries - and most of the time, that leftmost figure was a number bigger than 1. Are you trying to tell me these financial wizards didn't provide for their own financial security? They had no savings? No 401(k)s? They haven't saved any money for a rainy day? They bought their houses with interest-only loans, so they can't get a home equity line of credit, since they have no home equity? They have no money, so they need the taxpayers to "invest" in their re-education?

If that's the case, then maybe these people need to be in some field other than financial services. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill? Are the rest of us undertaxed? Is New York City running such a fat budget surplus that it can afford this largesse?

(BPSCG is startled by the sound of cheering coming from the left side of the political/economic aisle)

BPSCG · 20th February 2009, 10:14 AM

Duplicate # 1

BPSCG · 20th February 2009, 10:24 AM

Duplicate # 2

drkitten · 20th February 2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will ever come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero.

I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up?

I'm impressed. You managed to find two glaring non-problems. If that's the worst you can say about Bloomberg's idea, then I have no problem concluding that it's a work of genius.

Francesca R · 20th February 2009, 11:13 AM

Dammit you used to need to cough up $45m at least to retain one investment banker.

ravdin · 20th February 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will ever come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero.

i⋅ro⋅ny

1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.

GreNME · 20th February 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

I was thinking "janitorial staff" or perhaps "sewer inspectors."

Your idea interests me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Toke · 20th February 2009, 05:01 PM

The absurdity of the idea is overwelming.

These financial geniuses will have plenty of savings, and with their talents there will be no peoblem finding new jobs. They would be quite offended at the idea of accepting goverment money like some welfare client.

GreNME · 20th February 2009, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Bloomberg and the rest of New York's politicians are genuinely terrified of the loss of tax revenue. If that's the case, they should make New York City hospitable to business instead of chasing it away with ever-higher taxes. In this electronic age, there's less and less incentive for financial institutions to have their headquarters on Wall Street if they get taxed to death.

These are people who were making six figure salaries - and most of the time, that leftmost figure was a number bigger than 1. Are you trying to tell me these financial wizards didn't provide for their own financial security? They had no savings? No 401(k)s? They haven't saved any money for a rainy day? They bought their houses with interest-only loans, so they can't get a home equity line of credit, since they have no home equity? They have no money, so they need the taxpayers to "invest" in their re-education?

If that's the case, then maybe these people need to be in some field other than financial services. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill? Are the rest of us undertaxed? Is New York City running such a fat budget surplus that it can afford this largesse?

Woah, two newsletter interests in the same day. Bravo, well put, and so on. The rest of us have to bust our behinds and try to keep learning at the same time, and if these guys can't work and chew gum at the same time then perhaps fry cook or sanitation worker is a more suitable job anyway.

-----

Originally Posted by drkitten

I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up?

I'm impressed. You managed to find two glaring non-problems. If that's the worst you can say about Bloomberg's idea, then I have no problem concluding that it's a work of genius.

The rate of return for a lock (or other security) investment is actually measurable. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise. The investment in security is like a predecessor to insurance, the former being an investment that is proactive and the latter of which is post-active. The return is being able to hold on to what is yours for longer. The general rule for security is that while nothing is impenetrable/unbreakable, you reduce your chances of a security breach by about two or three times likelihood using most basic forms of security as compared to no security, and you reduce your chances exponentially by layering security measures in recommended fashions. Change that object from being a bike to being a safe or a home and the return is even more measurable.

While I can see some validity in your quibbling over the semantics of the word "investment" in the first case, calling either a non-problem just strikes me as incredibly naive.

skepticalbeliever · 20th February 2009, 08:54 PM

I don't understand what they can be trained to do. These people all have a top education.

Solitaire · 21st February 2009, 02:32 AM

Just watch this three-minute mini-documentary then you’ll understand why.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BPSCG · 21st February 2009, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up?

Originally Posted by GreNME

The rate of return for a lock (or other security) investment is actually measurable. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise. The investment in security is like a predecessor to insurance, the former being an investment that is proactive and the latter of which is post-active. The return is being able to hold on to what is yours for longer. The general rule for security is that while nothing is impenetrable/unbreakable, you reduce your chances of a security breach by about two or three times likelihood using most basic forms of security as compared to no security, and you reduce your chances exponentially by layering security measures in recommended fashions. Change that object from being a bike to being a safe or a home and the return is even more measurable.

While I can see some validity in your quibbling over the semantics of the word "investment" in the first case, calling either a non-problem just strikes me as incredibly naive.

Thanks, I was trying to post something akin to that yesterday when the forum kept telling me there were too many people trying to get in.

I know how much a lock costs, I know how much my bicycle would cost to replace, and I can make a pretty good estimate of the risk of my bike's being stolen if it's not locked up vs. the risk of its being stolen if it is locked up. So calculating whether a lock is a good investment is child's play. Insurance actuaries do this kind of risk analysis all the time when setting premiums.

I'd love to see what kind of analysis New York City's politicians did in deciding that $45 million was the optimal amount of money to throw at re-educating Wall Street bankers and financiers. How much additional tax revenue do they expect to reap from this "investment"? And how did they arrive at a figure for that additional tax revenue?

Alt+F4 · 21st February 2009, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I'd love to see what kind of analysis New York City's politicians did in deciding that $45 million was the optimal amount of money to throw at re-educating Wall Street bankers and financiers. How much additional tax revenue do they expect to reap from this "investment"? And how did they arrive at a figure for that additional tax revenue?

I think the mayor and media made a poor choice in using the term "re-educating". From what I can figure the money is going towards helping start-up companies who then might hire these unemployed financial folks. The goal seems to be to get the city off it's addiction to the tax revenue that came attached to the financial services industry.

geni · 21st February 2009, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers.

Goverments generaly own the relivant printing press.

mad · 21st February 2009, 06:08 AM

Just a thought, but how many low-skilled and no-skilled workers could be turned into high skilled workers with $45 million? As appealing as banker to burger flopper sounds, I think burger flopper to welder is more realistic.

Toke · 21st February 2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

I think burger flopper to welder is more realistic.

The closest I have seen is shipyard welder to windmill factory welder.
How many welders are needed in NY?

rwguinn · 21st February 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

...
2) "...$45 million in government money..."

There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by geni

Goverments generaly own the relivant printing press.

Beeps has it right. You are correct in fact, but incorrect in conclusion.
When the governmnet uses those presses to print more money, it reduces the value of my holdings, thus once again, it is money "taken from the taxpayers"

timhau · 21st February 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by skepticalbeliever

I don't understand what they can be trained to do. These people all have a top education.

Since they did a mess big enough to leave everyone in deep doo-doo, I suggest we start with potty training.

geni · 22nd February 2009, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Beeps has it right. You are correct in fact, but incorrect in conclusion.
When the governmnet uses those presses to print more money, it reduces the value of my holdings, thus once again, it is money "taken from the taxpayers"

Not really because that suggests that money ultimately belongs to the taxpayer in some analoge of allodial title. It doesn't (it wouldn't really work if it did) and ownership is closer to fee simple. As a result money does untimately belong to the goverment. It simply allowes people to hold it and trade it under certian fairly liberal conditions.

19th February 2009, 04:01 PM	#1
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	$45 Million to Retrain Investment Bankers Link. Quote: Under a program unveiled Wednesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, as well as to provide seed capital and offices for new businesses those laid-off bankers might create. The plan is intended to stem a potential exodus of banking professionals from the city during the restructuring of the financial services industry, which has been the city's economic engine for decades, and to speed the industry's recovery, which will take years, officials said. City officials also plan to try to lure big banks and financial companies from Asia and elsewhere to set up operations in New York, filling some of the void created by the implosion of large American firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. They hope the federal and state governments will let them use $30 million in federal money to attract those companies and other financial firms. Bloomberg said that he could not predict how financial services would bounce back, but he said he was confident that they eventually would. "We can be certain that cities around the world will compete for the jobs that the next revival of the financial services industry will bring," he said. "The time to begin winning that competition is right now. A big part of that is encouraging innovation *and holding onto the talented people who will make it happen*." The mind boggles. Emphasis mine. How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th February 2009, 05:56 PM	#2
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link. The mind boggles. Emphasis mine. How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work? My hope is that the new jobs they're trained to do involve flipping burgers. Maybe a few of them are "talented" enough to even make it to fry cook.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

19th February 2009, 06:19 PM	#3
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,114	They could be trained as prostitutes. It's more honest than what they've been doing, and it's proper work.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

19th February 2009, 06:22 PM	#4
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	What do you mean "could be trained as?"
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

20th February 2009, 07:30 AM	#6
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,536	Originally Posted by GreNME My hope is that the new jobs they're trained to do involve flipping burgers. Maybe a few of them are "talented" enough to even make it to fry cook. I was thinking "janitorial staff" or perhaps "sewer inspectors."
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

20th February 2009, 07:24 AM	#5
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by BPSCG [ How are you planning to hold on to these "talented people" if you're going to be re-training them to do other work? Well, like it said in the article, "Bloomberg's own company, Bloomberg LP, may be a model of the type of business the program could spawn." He was originally a banker at Salomon Brothers and is now in the financial information business, not the banking business. And you'll notice Bloomberg himself hasn't left NYC. Before you let your mind boggle too far, ask yourself whether there are any special skills that an investment banker might have as part of the package that could be applied in "other work." I seem to recall Peter Lynch did okay as a pundit/talking head and as a book author. I think he would also be remarkably good as a teacher at a business school, and I suspect he'd do well designing financial information systems, since he knows exactly what kind of information mutual fund managers need to do their job.

20th February 2009, 07:42 AM	#7
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by drkitten Well, like it said in the article, "Bloomberg's own company, Bloomberg LP, may be a model of the type of business the program could spawn." He was originally a banker at Salomon Brothers and is now in the financial information business, not the banking business. And you'll notice Bloomberg himself hasn't left NYC. Before you let your mind boggle too far, ask yourself whether there are any special skills that an investment banker might have as part of the package that could be applied in "other work." I seem to recall Peter Lynch did okay as a pundit/talking head and as a book author. I think he would also be remarkably good as a teacher at a business school, and I suspect he'd do well designing financial information systems, since he knows exactly what kind of information mutual fund managers need to do their job. From the article quoted in the OP: Quote: the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, Do you see problems with that? I see two glaring ones: 1) The city wants to invest... When a financial adviser says I should invest in something, I want to know what I return can expect for my investment, as expressed in a number followed by a unit of currency. When a politician says, "We're going to invest," hold on to your wallet, because that's a shorthand way of saying, "We're going to throw some money at a problem and hope it goes away." If the city is going to invest $45 million, what rate of return does it expect? 2) "...$45 million in government money..." There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

20th February 2009, 09:12 AM	#8
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	I for one might support helping these welfare bums stand on their own two feet. This social safety net is a small investment compared to supporting them on the taxpayers' dime for the rest of their lives.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

20th February 2009, 09:46 AM	#9
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by ravdin I for one might support helping these welfare bums stand on their own two feet. Fine. Write to mayor Bloomberg, ask where to send your check. Why should the taxpayers do it? Quote: This social safety net is a small investment compared to supporting them on the taxpayers' dime for the rest of their lives. There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will *ever* come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero. Bloomberg and the rest of New York's politicians are genuinely terrified of the loss of tax revenue. If that's the case, they should make New York City hospitable to business instead of chasing it away with ever-higher taxes. In this electronic age, there's less and less incentive for financial institutions to have their headquarters on Wall Street if they get taxed to death. These are people who were making six figure salaries - and most of the time, that leftmost figure was a number bigger than 1. Are you trying to tell me these financial wizards didn't provide for their own financial security? They had no savings? No 401(k)s? They haven't saved any money for a rainy day? They bought their houses with interest-only loans, so they can't get a home equity line of credit, since they have no home equity? They have no money, so they need the taxpayers to "invest" in their re-education? If that's the case, then maybe these people need to be in some field other than financial services. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill? Are the rest of us undertaxed? Is New York City running such a fat budget surplus that it can afford this largesse? (BPSCG is startled by the sound of cheering coming from the left side of the political/economic aisle)
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

20th February 2009, 10:14 AM	#10
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Duplicate # 1
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 20th February 2009 at 10:48 AM.

20th February 2009, 10:24 AM	#11
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Duplicate # 2
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 20th February 2009 at 10:47 AM.

20th February 2009, 10:50 AM	#12
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by BPSCG There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will *ever* come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero. I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up? I'm impressed. You managed to find two glaring non-problems. If that's the worst you can say about Bloomberg's idea, then I have no problem concluding that it's a work of genius.

20th February 2009, 11:13 AM	#13
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Dammit you used to need to cough up $45m at least to retain one investment banker.

20th February 2009, 01:04 PM	#14
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	Originally Posted by BPSCG There you go with the investment word. What's the expected rate of return on that $45 million? How do you know those jobs will *ever* come back? If they don't, the your rate of return is zero. i⋅ro⋅ny 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend. 2. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

20th February 2009, 04:54 PM	#15
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Cleon I was thinking "janitorial staff" or perhaps "sewer inspectors." Your idea interests me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

20th February 2009, 05:01 PM	#16
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	The absurdity of the idea is overwelming. These financial geniuses will have plenty of savings, and with their talents there will be no peoblem finding new jobs. They would be quite offended at the idea of accepting goverment money like some welfare client.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

20th February 2009, 05:06 PM	#17
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by BPSCG Bloomberg and the rest of New York's politicians are genuinely terrified of the loss of tax revenue. If that's the case, they should make New York City hospitable to business instead of chasing it away with ever-higher taxes. In this electronic age, there's less and less incentive for financial institutions to have their headquarters on Wall Street if they get taxed to death. These are people who were making six figure salaries - and most of the time, that leftmost figure was a number bigger than 1. Are you trying to tell me these financial wizards didn't provide for their own financial security? They had no savings? No 401(k)s? They haven't saved any money for a rainy day? They bought their houses with interest-only loans, so they can't get a home equity line of credit, since they have no home equity? They have no money, so they need the taxpayers to "invest" in their re-education? If that's the case, then maybe these people need to be in some field other than financial services. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill? Are the rest of us undertaxed? Is New York City running such a fat budget surplus that it can afford this largesse? Woah, two newsletter interests in the same day. Bravo, well put, and so on. The rest of us have to bust our behinds and try to keep learning at the same time, and if these guys can't work and chew gum at the same time then perhaps fry cook or sanitation worker is a more suitable job anyway. ----- Originally Posted by drkitten I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up? I'm impressed. You managed to find two glaring non-problems. If that's the worst you can say about Bloomberg's idea, then I have no problem concluding that it's a work of genius. The rate of return for a lock (or other security) investment is actually measurable. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise. The investment in security is like a predecessor to insurance, the former being an investment that is proactive and the latter of which is post-active. The return is being able to hold on to what is yours for longer. The general rule for security is that while nothing is impenetrable/unbreakable, you reduce your chances of a security breach by about two or three times likelihood using most basic forms of security as compared to no security, and you reduce your chances exponentially by layering security measures in recommended fashions. Change that object from being a bike to being a safe or a home and the return is even more measurable. While I can see some validity in your quibbling over the semantics of the word "investment" in the first case, calling either a non-problem just strikes me as incredibly naive.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

20th February 2009, 08:54 PM	#18
skepticalbeliever Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 199	I don't understand what they can be trained to do. These people all have a top education.
skepticalbeliever Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 199

21st February 2009, 05:19 AM	#20
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by drkitten I see. So when a security publication suggests that you "invest in a good lock", what's the expected rate of return on the price of the lock? How do you know that your bike won't be stolen anyway? How do you know that your bike WOULD HAVE BEEN stolen if you hadn't locked it up? Originally Posted by GreNME The rate of return for a lock (or other security) investment is actually measurable. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise. The investment in security is like a predecessor to insurance, the former being an investment that is proactive and the latter of which is post-active. The return is being able to hold on to what is yours for longer. The general rule for security is that while nothing is impenetrable/unbreakable, you reduce your chances of a security breach by about two or three times likelihood using most basic forms of security as compared to no security, and you reduce your chances exponentially by layering security measures in recommended fashions. Change that object from being a bike to being a safe or a home and the return is even more measurable. While I can see some validity in your quibbling over the semantics of the word "investment" in the first case, calling either a non-problem just strikes me as incredibly naive. Thanks, I was trying to post something akin to that yesterday when the forum kept telling me there were too many people trying to get in. I know how much a lock costs, I know how much my bicycle would cost to replace, and I can make a pretty good estimate of the risk of my bike's being stolen if it's not locked up vs. the risk of its being stolen if it is locked up. So calculating whether a lock is a good investment is child's play. Insurance actuaries do this kind of risk analysis all the time when setting premiums. I'd love to see what kind of analysis New York City's politicians did in deciding that $45 million was the optimal amount of money to throw at re-educating Wall Street bankers and financiers. How much additional tax revenue do they expect to reap from this "investment"? And how did they arrive at a figure for that additional tax revenue?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

21st February 2009, 05:38 AM	#21
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by BPSCG I'd love to see what kind of analysis New York City's politicians did in deciding that $45 million was the optimal amount of money to throw at re-educating Wall Street bankers and financiers. How much additional tax revenue do they expect to reap from this "investment"? And how did they arrive at a figure for that additional tax revenue? I think the mayor and media made a poor choice in using the term "re-educating". From what I can figure the money is going towards helping start-up companies who then might hire these unemployed financial folks. The goal seems to be to get the city off it's addiction to the tax revenue that came attached to the financial services industry.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

21st February 2009, 05:45 AM	#22
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,579	Originally Posted by BPSCG There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers. Goverments generaly own the relivant printing press.

21st February 2009, 06:08 AM	#23
mad New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 15	Just a thought, but how many low-skilled and no-skilled workers could be turned into high skilled workers with $45 million? As appealing as banker to burger flopper sounds, I think burger flopper to welder is more realistic.

21st February 2009, 09:42 AM	#24
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	Quote: I think burger flopper to welder is more realistic. The closest I have seen is shipyard welder to windmill factory welder. How many welders are needed in NY?
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

21st February 2009, 09:47 AM	#25
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,456	Originally Posted by BPSCG ... 2) "...$45 million in government money..." There's no such thing as government money. There's only money that the government has taken from the taxpayers. Originally Posted by geni Goverments generaly own the relivant printing press. Beeps has it right. You are correct in fact, but incorrect in conclusion. When the governmnet uses those presses to print more money, it reduces the value of my holdings, thus once again, it is money "taken from the taxpayers"
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

21st February 2009, 03:54 PM	#26
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,694	Originally Posted by skepticalbeliever I don't understand what they can be trained to do. These people all have a top education. Since they did a mess big enough to leave everyone in deep doo-doo, I suggest we start with potty training.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips Last edited by timhau; 21st February 2009 at 03:58 PM.

22nd February 2009, 03:16 AM	#27
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,579	Originally Posted by rwguinn Beeps has it right. You are correct in fact, but incorrect in conclusion. When the governmnet uses those presses to print more money, it reduces the value of my holdings, thus once again, it is money "taken from the taxpayers" Not really because that suggests that money ultimately belongs to the taxpayer in some analoge of allodial title. It doesn't (it wouldn't really work if it did) and ownership is closer to fee simple. As a result money does untimately belong to the goverment. It simply allowes people to hold it and trade it under certian fairly liberal conditions.