The Lounge
Moderators: Mollybygolly, spoiled_candy, nomoreexcuses, peaches0405


Romney's And Obama's Largest Contributor...


Quote  |  Reply

...loses one of their top employees. He also publicly gives the reason(s) why he's leaving...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why -i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&pag ewanted=all

 

13 Replies (last)

He was hardly a 'top' employee. He was a lower level executive director working at Sachs in the UK, one of about 12,000* lower level VPs out of a workforce of about 35,000 - company wide.*

Your rhetoric gland is acting up again, Dude. ;)

 

edit: corrected/linked

 

 

He's not a CEO or member of the board, but he held a position of significant responsibility.

I think he's telling the truth about the culture at Sachs.  And I'm glad that he is.

And it's true that Sachs has been the biggest campaign contributor to both sides in presidential elections for at least the past 3 elections.

So, I'm not sure what rhetoric is meaningfully inaccurate.

And I'm also not sure what the point of the OP is.

Some industries really shouldn't be publicly traded, because they suffer more from short-term focus than they gain from the leverage.

Investment firms, insurance companies, probably pharmaceutical companies...

Original Post by kathygator:

He was a lower level VP working at Sachs in the UK, one of about 13,000 lower level VPs out of a workforce of about 35,000 - company wide.

Wait - more than 1 in 3 Goldman Sacs employees are VPs?

At a certain level of use, I think the term starts to lose a little bit of its meaning.

(Which, I guess, is your point - but I can't help but wonder why people tout the prestige of a VP title when everyone has it.)

Well, other than the fact that he shares the same title as about 33% of their workforce, and is commenting on the culture at Goldman in the UK - nothing is meaningfully inaccurate. Not suggesting the OP is willfully misleading, suggesting there's no news here other than a disgruntled employee.

I do not see the point of the OP, either. Unless the goal is to talk about campaign finance reform, in which case I am all in. :)

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by kathygator:

He was a lower level VP working at Sachs in the UK, one of about 13,000 lower level VPs out of a workforce of about 35,000 - company wide.

Wait - more than 1 in 3 Goldman Sacs employees are VPs?

At a certain level of use, I think the term starts to lose a little bit of its meaning.

(Which, I guess, is your point - but I can't help but wonder why people tout the prestige of a VP title when everyone has it.)

Well as I corrected: this guy was a managing director, there were about 500 or so VP above him.

Kg that puts him in the top1-2% of his org.

Not sure if that means anything or not, but he's definitely not a low man on the totem pole.

From Kathy's link, it says:

That compares with 450 managing directors, the next rung up in the Goldman hierarchy and a job classification that Smith didn't achieve.

Smith, who did not return voicemails on his cellphone seeking comment, carried the title of executive director, but it was not nearly as illustrious as it might sound. Goldman's roughly 12,000 vice presidents and executive directors compares with 450 managing directors -- the next rung up in the Goldman hierarchy and a job classification that Smith didn't achieve. Overall, the company has about 33,000 employees, meaning that 36 percent of Goldman's workforce carried a title similar to Smith's.

 

From my link. I mis quoted. Apologies.

Does anyone wonder why Goldman-Sachs contributes heavily to Romney and Obama, or do you all simply accept the corruption and not care?

Rhetoric? Hardly. The resignation was not even the point of my argument. Corzine, former governor and senator, head of MF Global throws up his hands and sez "I dunno where the money went...Sorry." and their president Abelow is appointed as an advisor to a Federal agency, does anyone not think that Goldman-Sachs might not something in return?

I'd wonder if they didn't contribute, because they'd be one of the few who don't. The corruption is systemic, IMO. Paulson was a Goldman guy as were many of his staff. They (all of Wall Street) have been buying their way into the halls of governance for years.

It is to be assumed they want something in return. They have for decades.

Original Post by kathygator:

I'd wonder if they didn't contribute, because they'd be one of the few who don't. The corruption is systemic, IMO. Paulson was a Goldman guy as were many of his staff. They (all of Wall Street) have been buying their way into the halls of governance for years.

It is to be assumed they want something in return. They have for decades.

And we accept it, don't we? Heck...we promote it by voting them in(the bought and paid for politicians), yes?

Well, we've been accepting it by voting them in since the second presidential election, IMO.

But I think there's been a definite change in the awareness of the American voting public. It started, IMO, in 2008, and has been escalating since then. I honestly think we're becoming better informed because of the internet.

I also think that the result will be substantive campaign finance reform, which I think is what is needed.

13 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement