It's not fair limiting bank exec pay to $500,000. They'll never "make their nut" that way.

[HamdenRice]

You see, you're just not looking at this thing the way bankers and other finance people look at it. You're looking at $500,000 and thinking, "I could live off that".

But that's not the way the upper reaches of the finance "community" look at compensation. You're looking at what you might need to live off of. They're looking at what they need to "make their nut," as the slang goes.

"Making your nut" means making and saving the amount of money necessary to live your lifestyle without ever working again.

What? You didn't know that Wall Street types have, as a goal, not a salary, but "making their nut"? Dude, where have you been?

You need your condo or townhouse in Manhattan and a house in the Hamptons at the very, very minimal level of what's appropriate. You need private school tuition for the kids, and the best kindergarten schools in Manhattan actually cost more per year than Harvard Law School. You need to be able to spend that amount for your kids from pre-K through several years of graduate school in the Ivy Leagues -- and that's over 20 years or more.

So while $500,000 might allow you to live a certain lifestyle, you would need between 10 and 100 times that -- between $5 million and $50 million stashed away to live that lifestyle on interest and unearned income alone, forever, without working. Throw in ensuring that your children and your children's children live that lifestyle, and your looking at maybe $100 million at the least as "making your nut." To do that, $500,000 is laughable. You need at least $5 million per year to start, right out of B-school.

It is especially difficult to "make your nut" of $50 million on $5 million per year if you start living your lifestyle -- and of course you have to -- while you are trying to "make your nut." On a salary (plus bonuses) of just $5 million per year, it would take 20 years to "make your nut" -- assuming you saved everything. But if you buy your condo within 2 years of finishing B-school, and buy your house in the Hamptons within 4 years of finishing B-school, how are you going to save enough to "make your nut"?

So $500,000 is completely unrealistic.

Kick and recommend if you pity the investment bankers because they won't "make their nut" while being bailed out by the taxpayer!

:sarcasm:

[janx]

1. WHERE did you find that expression?

:rofl:

Where did it come from?

[HamdenRice]

2. Sadly, it's actually NY finance slang

Not that I was ever in the league, but I knew plenty of people who were, and they talked about that as their goal.

It's an actual expression, and explains the (il)logic of their greed.

[janx]

9. It would be a great addition to a poem, no?

I'm going to use it frequently now whenever I can, if only to determine how many people are familiar with the expression. :rofl:

[SmileyRose]

16. I don't even understand it.

Are we talking about squirrels gathering nuts or are we talking about male anatomy or what?

[HamdenRice]

23. See posts 7 and 21.

And I think the origin was looking at squirrels and the amount of "nut" they had to put away for the winter.

[NYCGirl]

19. I remember it from reading VARIETY. The "nut" is the expenses of a theater.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuts

# Slang.

1. The cost of launching a business venture.
2. The operating expenses of a theater, theatrical production, or similar enterprise: “The has simply failed to attract enough paying customers per week to meet its nut” (Variety).

[izzybeans]

39. They must of stolen it from Too Short

he was always "making his nut" in his raps. Or so he boasted.

[Hepburn]

5. In the legal biz....

...it was referred to as "cutting your nut."

:hi:

[janx]

8. Vasectomy?

;-)

[Hepburn]

18. Lol....!!!

:hi:

[Enrique]

12. coined by this guy

[dysfunctional press]

27. that expression has been around for ages...

i doubt it's origins are even known at this point.

[roguevalley]

36. I am hoping most of them gave Bernie Madoff their nuts. :)

[Deja Q]

3. $500,000 is more than what President Obama makes. And who here would not want to live on $500k/yr?

I will K&R your post -- not because of the lazy wanking bankers but because of the shrewdness of your post.

[libnnc]

4. They should be grateful that none of them have

been sledgehammered in "the nut" by us angry proles...yet.

I'd LOVE to do the honors.

[Subdivisions]

6. You were a cheerleader of the original bailout bill, weren't you? n/t

[Romulox]

11. Oh yeah. This thread is an attempt at pennance, methinks. nt

[HamdenRice]

13. I supported the bailout and glad I did

If we hadn't had a bailout, we would be in the position to limit bank executive pay.

We now have a nationalized banking system. We're in control. We just don't realize it yet.

Surprisingly, David Brooks, the usually wrong NY Times columnist is one of the few who gets it. In yesterday's column, he was bitching about how "Ward Three" of DC now dictates the consumption patterns of the investment bankers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03brooks.html

At Davos, instead of capitalist triumphalism, almost everyone was saying that laissez faire is dead.

If you compare the collapse of capitalist triumphalism to the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's like instead of realizing what just happened, we're bitching about the cost of tearing down the Berlin Wall and complaining that Vaclav Havel and Lech Walensa are destined to sell us out before they even have started.

[Romulox]

17. What a ridiculous argument!

"If we hadn't had a bailout, we would be in the position to limit bank executive pay."

If we didn't bail them out, this executive pay wouldn't have come from the public coffers!

[HamdenRice]

20. Sorry you hate socialism. Me, nah

I've been looking forward to nationalized finance and the beginnings of socialism for most of my life.

Sorry you hate it so much! Hopefully, you'll learn to live with it.

[Romulox]

35. LOL. You're the kind of "socialist" who argues for poor people to subisidize the rich

Have you ever met the poster who uses a Marx avatar and argues (quite passionately, I might add!) that progressive taxation is to be avoided as it might anger the rich? Or the one with the Che avatar who argues for "free trade"?

I think the three of you would get along famously!

[HamdenRice]

37. And your the kind of DU poster who makes up inane arguments

I posted in favor of progressive taxation just this morning. So in your mind you think I would get along with someone else who you claim opposes progressive taxation, and that's your argument?

Do you have any coherent arguments to make?

[Romulox]

41. Sorry bub. You can post a million "penance" threads, but you'll be remembered as Bailout Booster.

"I posted in favor of progressive taxation just this morning. "

You've also posted in favor of trillions of no-strings-attached cash for Wall Street. Which came first, the shilling for Wall Street or the (belated) calls for progressive taxation? :silly:

"So in your mind you think I would get along with someone else who you claim opposes progressive taxation, and that's your argument?"

You both seem to carry water for the rich. :shrug:

"Do you have any coherent arguments to make?"

You understand perfectly well what I'm speaking about. :hi:

[HamdenRice]

43. It could only be penance if I thought it was wrong. I still support bailout/nationalization

And that shows why your posts are frankly kind of loony. I might as well say you are posting penance posts for not supporting the bailout -- that would be as logical.

But that's par for the course. Every single one of your posts about the economy has been not just economically illiterate, but frankly :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: -- and I don't mean "some," I mean every single loony one.

Here's how you can remedy this sad state of affairs. Go to your local library:

Go to the "Economics" section.
Choose a book.
Read said book.
Repeat.
Repeat.
Repeat.

Then get back to the rest of us.

[Romulox]

44. Which is why you are attempting to bolster your "progressive" bona fides

By telling me you posted in support of progressive taxation... :silly:

"I still support bailout/nationalization"

Er, the bailout was not "nationalization" of anything but bad debt.

"Every single one of your posts about the economy has been not just economically illiterate, but frankly :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: -- and I don't mean "some," I mean every single loony on"

And here it comes: You are cornered, so you turn to the only thing left: ad hominems (about "some other" posts I've made--it's always "some other" posts!)

[HamdenRice]

45. But the problem is there are no facts in your posts

"the bailout was not "nationalization" of anything but bad debt"

As an example, that would only be true if the Treasury had only purchased defaulted securities (bad debt). But they didn't. They bought preferred stock, which means they are an equity owner.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. All of your posts just make up stuff, so it's impossible to have a rational, reality based discussion with you.

:shrug:

Get an economics book or at least look at some of the web based spread sheets on the bailout, and then perhaps we can have a discussion. But right now, to me, it feels like I'm arguing about lunar geology with someone whose premise is that the moon is made entirely of green cheese, while my premise is that it's mostly made of mineral substances like anorthosite.

It's just not possible to have a fruitful discussion given our different factual premises.

As for ad hom argument, you might want to look up thread. You started using that several posts ago.

[Romulox]

46. I'm not getting into your delusional crap about how the gov't will "profit" from the TARP

"which means they are an equity owner"

"Equity owner" of a position in an insolvent companies. Whoopy! (Please explain why private money wasn't jumping on these "killer deals"! :silly:

"All of your posts just make up stuff"

You're getting less and less specific, which means you are more and more uncertain of your own position. :hi:

[Romulox]

48. Here's some facts for ya: "Watchdog: Treasury overpaid for bank stocks"

But then you knew that, you master of economics, you! :rofl:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965HBF80&show_article=1

[HamdenRice]

52. But, but, but ... I thought there were absolutely no controls ???

:rofl:

Your posts continue to be :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

Now let me get this straight:

The federal government can now tell Citibank that they can't buy a corporate jet.

The Obama administration can now dictate the upper limit of bank management salaries.

And as your own post points out, we, the taxpayers, get to look over their books to see what our equity in the banks is worth and what we should pay for the next tranche of nationalization/ socialization of the financial sector.

Yet you're running around screaming that we've given away the money with no controls and no oversight. Didn't you write upthread, "trillions of no-strings-attached cash for Wall Street..."" Your own more recent post looks like it's linking to some pretty big "strings attached," doesn't it?

And the link you posted discusses the problem that the government, "overpaid for stocks and other assets," which sounds suspiciously like it isn't "no stings attached cash" -- that it was a purchase of assets. The link you posted also says, "the federal government has received more than $271 million in dividends from preferred shares obtained through the program," which means the link you posted (not me, mind you, your own link) is calling you a bald faced liar. Doesn't your own link disprove your squealing about federal profits being "delusional crap"?

Your own subject line says that the government overpaid for stocks and other assets, but upthread, you said the government bought nothing but bad debt. Can you see how both of those claims cannot be right?

Can you see how you are contradicting yourself? Can you see that, in fact, your posts are almost automatically self-discrediting?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

My gosh, sometimes dealing with you is so easy, it's almost unfair. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Romulox]

53. You are delusional or profoundly dishonest. Which is it?

"And the link you posted discusses the problem that the government, "overpaid for stocks and other assets," which sounds suspiciously like it isn't "no stings attached cash" -- that it was a purchase of assets."

What a bizarre leap of logic! The fact that the government purchased worthless assets means that they are asserting control over just that: worthless assets. If this was such great shakes, private money would have lined up for a crack at it. But they didn't. Odd, huh?

"The link you posted also says, "the federal government has received more than $271 million in dividends from preferred shares obtained through the program," which means the link you posted (not me, mind you, your own link) is calling you a bald faced liar."

No, links don't call people "bald (sic) faced liars". It said that the government overpaid for the assets that you have attempted to claim were "worth more than the government paid for them." Your mischaracterization is bizarre, to say the least.

"Doesn't your own link disprove your squealing about federal profits being 'delusional crap'? "

This is where it gets hard to believe that you really are an economist. Because the so-called "investment" in TOXIC assets wasn't a complete wipeout, that means a profit was turned? In other words, if I buy a piece of trash from you for $5, and then sell it for $3, I've made a "profit"? Again, you claim to be an economist? :silly:

[HamdenRice]

56. Your posts continue to completely contradict your own posts

That's loony.

You just now wrote, "the government purchased worthless assets". But you linked to a site that said the assets were worth "$176 billion".

So which is it?

Arguing with you is like arguing with someone over moon geology whose premise is that the moon is made of green cheese.

Sorry there's no polite way to put it, but you simply don't know what you're talking about and you constantly contradict yourself. I don't how anyone is supposed to discuss anything with you when half of what you say flatly contradicts the other half of what you say.

:shrug:

[Romulox]

60. LOL. If you can't wow them with insight, baffle them with bullshit!

"You just now wrote, "the government purchased worthless assets". But you linked to a site that said the assets were worth "$176 billion"."

Using a basic economic definition of "worth", they are worthless--no willing buyer can be located for them. But it is understandable that you prefer to argue these semantics, when the math is so unkind to your position: These assets were clearly worth less than the US paid--that means they represent a "loss".

You do know what a "loss" is, don't you, Professor? :silly:

[HamdenRice]

61. Congratulations! You finally admitted you completely contradicted yourself! Now lets work together

to rationalize some of your other bizarre self-contradictions so that we can figure out what you're trying to say so we can have an actual discussion.

Upthread you said that the bailout was the giving away of trillions of dollars "with no strings attached."

But you also seem to admit that there is oversight which, inter alia, prices the assets. I hope you also acknowledge reality-based reporting that Obama has limited executive compensation of banks that participate in the bailout.

So, do you now accept that the bailout was not a "no strings attached" give away, but a purchase of assets with regulatory oversight?

Come on, I have more faith in you now, and I know you can do this!

:hi:

Once we've gone through all your self-contradictions and self-discrediting, then we can see where we disagree and I can disabuse you of your remaining misinformed views.

[Romulox]

62. You have the maturity of a child, and the intellect to match.

"Do you now accept that the bailout was not a "no strings attached" give away, but a purchase of assets?"

It was a purchase of "assets" that no willing buyer on the open market will touch. You can characterize it any way you like, but it represents a massive loss to the US taxpayer.

[HamdenRice]

65. Of course no private buyer would buy it. That's why its a "government bailout".

But your point proves nothing. So was the Mexican bailout (on which the Clinton administration made money) and so was the earlier auto bailout.

If the federal government were to take over health care financing in a single payer system, that would also be an example of a federalization that no private buyer "would touch."

But those of us who support socializing key sectors of the economy understand that the private sector can't or won't do everything that needs to be done. I realize that you are subscribing to an ultra orthodox pure free market ideal as a test for the bailout, but it's those ultra free market ideals, put into practice, that got us into the crisis we're in now.

I would hope the economic history of the last few years would demonstrate to even a free market dead ender like you are posing as, that the free market can't do everything -- and certainly can't carry out a massive Keynesian nationalization and rescue of the financial sector.

Now that we've squared that away -- that the free market can't do it all -- can we address whether the bailout was, as you claim, a no strings attached give away of trillions of dollars, or as the link you posted claims, and as the reality based media are showing, a purchase of assets with significant "strings attached," including the administration's power to set executive compensation?

So which is it?

:shrug:

It can't be both. So you have to choose one.

Oh, and by the way, if you're having trouble with self-monitoring, you might want to re-read your last post and subject line to recognize that you are, as usual, engaging in an ad hominem attack, which rhetorical tactic, at other, contradictory times, you claim to be opposed to.

[Romulox]

66. But these "assets" are "worth" so much! How could there be no private buyer?

You're so ridiculous.

[HamdenRice]

67. Please try to stick to the question. Otherwise, you'll miss this opportunity to learn!

"Now that we've squared that away -- that the free market can't do it all -- can we address whether the bailout was, as you claim, a no strings attached give away of trillions of dollars, or as the link you posted claims, and as the reality based media are showing, a purchase of assets with significant "strings attached," including the administration's power to set executive compensation?

So which is it?"

As for your new question, which shows that you don't understand securities pricing, the price depends on what the markets say the price is, and because of panic or medium term macroeconomic conditions, the medium term price outlook can decline below what private investors are willing to risk.

That's why most of us understand government can do things that the private sector can't -- most of us, except of course, those who espouse free market fundamentalism, such as is reflected in the position you are taking.

[Romulox]

68. Your posts are so verbose, and yet say so little. I'll take that as a concession

Remember when you were arguing that the US would "profit" from the TARP? :hi:

At least you've dropped that ridiculous line of argument.

"That's why most of us understand government can do things that the private sector can't "

Like support the lavish lifestyles to which Citibank personnel have become accustomed to, you mean? The market refuses to do it, so I guess that falls onto the US taxpayer! :hi:

"most of us, except of course, those who espouse free market fundamentalism, such as is reflected in the position you are taking."

This new line of argument: that you are a reverse-robin hood "socialist", and that anyone who disagrees with the TARP is a "free market fundamentalist" is too silly. It's a shame that nobody is reading this exchange but you and me.

PLEASE Start a new topic on that one, and I'll make fun of you on that one, too! If you don't, I may make your response to me an OP.

[HamdenRice]

69. Please answer the question. This is your path to learning!

I'll repeat it once again:

"Now that we've squared that away -- that the free market can't do it all -- can we address whether the bailout was, as you claim, a no strings attached give away of trillions of dollars, or as the link you posted claims, and as the reality based media are showing, a purchase of assets with significant "strings attached," including the administration's power to set executive compensation?

So which is it?"

[Romulox]

70. No way. I want you to explain how the US will "profit" from the TARP.

I'm not interested in characterization arguments. I'm interested in the math.

I want you to explain how the US is (or will) "profit" from the TARP! :hi: :rofl:

[Demit]

7. Self-employed people have used that expression for years, but to describe monthly bills.

In our case, it's the bare minimum of what you need to meet your monthly obligations. Wall Streeters might have inflated it to mean much more than it originally meant. That seems to be what they are good at doing.

[HamdenRice]

21. That's the origin -- small business, necessary expenses, after which comes profit

But for finance megalomaniacs, the "minimum" is defined differently!

[Romulox]

10. The TARP bill contained no limits on executive compensation. Why are they needed now?

:sarcasm:
:hi:

[HamdenRice]

14. Your premise is wrong, The TARP Bill did have limits on exec compensation

but they were not very enforceable. But those provisions have given Obama the tools he has used to make them more rigidly enforceable.

:hi:

[Romulox]

15. Yours is a distinction without difference. nt

[leftchick]

22. I believe I have heard Tony Soprano use the term

several times during the course of the series. Coincidence?

[HamdenRice]

24. See post 7. It's a general business term that was perverted

but if you are comparing Wall St to the mafia, well then,... harrumphh!

[janx]

34. And if I can, I'll pervert it even more, just because it's so

damned funny! :rofl:

[librechik]

25. Gee-maybe we'd just get a bunch of green-eyeshade professionals in those jobs

instead of showboating glamour queens

[HamdenRice]

26. Hal Holbrooke, not Mike Douglass. It actually changed over circa 1980.

One of the points that Oliver Stone was making in his great movie, Wall Street, was that the showboaters somehow took over Wall St from the green eyeshades guys around 1980. I remember reading an article in Esquire by the economics commentator who wrote under the pen name "Adam Smith" (I think he was actually George Goodman) around 1980, and it was about how Wall Street top execs were jealous of Texas oil men because the very top Wall Street execs could never hope to earn $1 million in a year.

I mean, really, let that sink in. In the 1970s, a top Wall Street exec's most unrealistic but fond dream was of someday making $1 million.

[librechik]

28. the most effective thing the pukkes did was propogandize us back into the stone age

I don't know how we can recover--they changed the whole definition of being American.
And Dems aren't interested in brainwashing folks, (rightly so, to a certain extent, altho a bit of re-education would be welcome concerning the role of government) so I guess it's just going to stay that way or get worse.

[Morning Dew]

29. The Wall St. Mob will have to live off the Vig for a while... then they'll come break our arms

to get the nut.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

30. I double triple dog dare them or somebody, anybody

to post a want ad with the exact job description of what a bank exec does, with a starting salary of $250,000, and see what kind of talent responds. If they were true believers in the free market, and the market setting salary, they certainly couldn't quibble about this, as it would serve the stockholders well to reduce unnecessary salary expense.

I am certainly the pool of candidates would be qualified, and there would be excuse not to choose one of them.

I am tired of the different rules that apply to different levels of employment. Thousands, maybe millions of people's jobs are being eliminated, as their salaries are a liability when it comes to the investors.

[nichomachus]

31. I see these guys around here all the time

They zoom in on a shiny private jet -- then they helicopter over to a buddy's estate, which just happens to have a private 18-hole golf course. They zip out for a dinner with a couple of bottles of $500 wine. Maybe they spend the night in their buddy's $11-million vacation home (one of several that he owns) -- or not -- then hop their private helicopter back to the jet when they zoom off to god knows where. That's just for an overnight or a weekend golf match.

And, you don't do that on $500,000 a year.

[janx]

32. I'm looking for a second job because my first doesn't allow

me to pay all of the bills, and besides, I want to make my nut.

[Skidmore]

33. Maybe they needs to adjust their lifestyles like all of the rest of us have had to.

Frankly, they could use a swift kick in their nuts.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. !

:applause: :thumbsup:

[Joanne98]

38. Don't forget the toxic wife! She needs at least 50,000$ a day!

[Lex]

40. That's not what "making your nut" means at all.

Nice story, though.

"Making your nut" is slang for what one has to make at a minimum to pay the monthly required bills.

[Romulox]

47. It's OK. He's just trying to "reform" himself after making a name as a "Bailout Booster".

Facts have nothing to do with this--it's about revisionism.

[EC]

42. Too bad,

everyone else on welfare or unemployment is restricted to how much they get paid...so should they. What they are getting is welfare.

[Romulox]

49. Watchdog: Treasury overpaid for bank stocks

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965HBF80&show_article=1

[SlipperySlope]

50. You have "make your nut" defined wrong.

You have "make your nut" defined wrong. I've heard (and used) that expression since the 1970s.

"Making your Nut" just means making enough each month to cover your necessities; rent, groceries, utilities, etc.

Salaried people don't use this expression very much, since their income tends not to change much from month-to-month. But for people with income that can vary quite a bit (sales people, wait staff, small businesses, contractors) "making your nut" is the crossover between just surviving and having something extra to save or enjoy that month.

In conversation, sometimes it goes like this:

A: "What's your nut?"
B: "About $1800 a month"
A: "Hmmm... That's a tough nut".

Who knows, maybe wall street took this expression and corrupted it like everything else, but when I grew up it was well understood in certain blue-collar circles.

P.S. - I grew up in Vegas, for what it is worth, probably learned all kinds of slang that wasn't common in the rest of the country.

[Romulox]

54. He also has little grasp of basic mathematics. Ask him about how the US has "profited" from TARP!

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

63. I hear the term often now.

Mostly from laid off people who are working at various part time and short term work. They keep re-evaluating their "nut" as they down scale. Your definition is the one they use. Their "nut" is the bare minimum they need to stay in their home, feed the kids, and put gas in the car. Health insurance is often the biggest worry as a part of the nut. National health coverage would be the biggest boon to those trying to get by. You can always predict your housing and food bill. Unexpected health problems are the terror that makes insurance company CEO's fat and rich.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. That is what it means. Just what ever it takes to meet your monthly expenses.

[SlipperySlope]

51. DP - Delete

Deleted

[sweetpotato]

55. If they don't like the pay, they could get another job, right?

whiny bankers.

[backscatter712]

57. I've used the term "Fuck you money".

Fuck-you-money is enough money to be able to tell anyone in the world "Fuck you!"

And it's about the same amount of cash as making your nut.

[Moostache]

58. My gutter mind does not equate "nut" with that at all....

Oops...guess I am outing myself as a bit of a pervert now, but references to "nut" generally carried a sexual connotation in the circles that I ran in as a pup...:party:

Of course, I could think of many other things to do to the nuts of those responsible for such gloabl pain right now...:spank: :grr:

[spanone]

71. make 'this' nut