This isn't aimed at you, but I think it's interesting that a couple of days ago (yesterday?) we had a thread where people said they would like a company to be honest and upfront about the need to make a profit, and clear about its goal of continue to increase profits.

Here, we're exposed to a company that does that and there's contempt about how the organisation expresses itself.

Yes, this clarity is actually good - you come in knowing that the company has no culture, and you're not family. All performance, no illusions.

Better than being propagandized to love your terrible job.

There _is_ a culture at GS, or any other investment bank, and it is designed to bring in the right sort of people.

I never worked at GS, but I do work in finance and some elements of this culture I enjoy. E.g. at my last place, we had no perks, ping pong tables, gym discounts, fancy office etc. (the office building was cheap ex-factory floor at the suburbs), but the salary was above the market. I liked it, "don't tell me what to do with my money"

That was the culture at my first job out of college - no perks, but above-market compensation. I look for that everywhere I work now too, and instituted it at my last startup. Everything else just seems childish cargo-cultish BS by comparison.

Unfortunately in the US the tax system means perks can be substantially advantageous to both the employer and the employee. Otherwise I too would prefer salary over perks.

You're right, all groups of people have norms. I used culture to mean the fluffy, icky, non-true kind of talk about what management values.

Yes, you and dilemma make great points. I Agree, that given these companies exist this is beter than a pretence at being 'nice'. However, it's the prediminance and ruling of our lives by the existence and systemic power of such unvalues that is what ruins lives (time, overwork), and the environment. It's simple agent shortish term maximising, for a money game, rather than what would be better: a human / AI collaborative effort to figure out optimal outcomes, and work towards them in informationally rich ways.

Those ideas are and probably always will be in deep conflict. Nobody said it has to be easy.

>Here, we're exposed to a company that does that and there's contempt about how the organisation expresses itself.

HackerNews hates banks. SV's capitalism is good, Wall Street's is not.

>Here, we're exposed to a company that does that and there's contempt about how the organisation expresses itself.

No, there's contempt about what the organization does. We like that they're honest about being vampire-squids on the face of humanity.

People who work there are quite happy to accept that. While at work, you are nothing but a money making machine. If you can bring money to GS (or any other investment bank) — you will be well compensated. If you can't — there's no need to keep you around.

If you don't share this life attitude, you probably shouldn't work in high finance.

You probably shouldn't be working in any organisation if you can't understand how you deliver value to that organisation.

GS are probably just a bit more up front about this.

This would work much better for everyone if it was gamified and kept away from real money.

Well, for sure that's how it works. I do believe noting this is valuable for social political and values entrepreneurship reasons. Often, people round here don't just want to fit into the machine.

You don't need to if you do not want to.

For Goldman Sachs, you are indeed a resource, a money making appliance. However, for _you_ (assuming you are lucky/hardworking/talented enough to get a job at GS), they are not a family, nor a prison or army or anything else. They are an _instrument_ to achieve your personal goals.

E.g. if I am a successful algo trader, I can start building my track record, bringing money from external sources (not only for investment, but for technical/administrative costs as well), and, after say 5-10 years of gruesome work, I can launch my own hedge fund. Or fail at it.

OR -- I can apply for a quant trader job at GS, and get access to their vast financial resources, knowledge, connections, and whatsnot. Yes, they will take, say, 99.5% of money I earn with my trading algorithms, but 0.5% of a billion is much more than 100% of those $20000 I can make per year trading on my own account.

Win-win.

> Win-win.

That's not complete. It's win-win-lose. Win for you, win for GS, and lose for the society.

I am a part of the society. So are Goldman Sachs directors, and their clients, and their clients, and clients of those clients etc. GS is an investment bank. Their main activity is investment -- meaning giving money to the entrepreneurs (not directly -- but instead investing in funds who assemble venture funds who give money to the entrepreneurs), as well as providing financial lifelines to existing companies.

For me, investment banking is what enables society's economic well-being. Without investment banks, there would be much less companies created, jobs retained, and economic activity in general.

Investment banks make high profits? Good, every business should strive to do that -- Apple have much better profit margins than GS. Nobody blames Apple to be ruthless capitalistic profit-takers, as long as their new iPhone is better than the old one.

That's a very generous view of the investment banking sector, and one that doesn't quite align with my 17 years experience in that line. For example, your view doesn't accommodate how GS packaged credit derivs designed to fail and sold them to AIG, then sold default insurance on the same instruments to hedge funds that would profit from their failure.

Investment banks exist to extract a profit from each transaction they do. Nothing more or less. A very large proportion of that profit goes to the management and staff of the bank as bonuses. Some of it goes to shareholders as dividends, but a much lower proportion that in other sectors. Which is why I don't buy IB equity.

You also forgot to mention how they took order from clients at one desk, then swiveled the chair around and told the prop desk what the order was so the house could front run the order or do one of any number of other unethical things to the clients.

That requires belief in a certain type of economic religion. Compare:

  - "God is good, and we do as He commands, because
     we are His people."
  - "Our work is what enables civilization to exist,
     and its economy to grow."

From my perspective, investment banks are less virtuous and necessary. They are like a hydroelectric dynamo. They appear to sell cheap renewable power to the surrounding communities. But no one seems to notice that is only because they dammed the entire river, such that no one downriver can provide their own (possibly cheaper?) power with their own waterwheel. They made themselves the only game in town, and then they made the game crooked. Anybody that doesn't have a lakefront mansion abutting the reservoir has to make do with the silty low-head trickle that comes down the spillway.

They, in conjunction with the rest of the global financial system, partially caused the problem that they appear to solve. The monetary system is engineered to concentrate capital at the top. It makes it easier to make money just by already having money than by efficiently executing a great new idea.

I am biased against banking by my personal experiences. So take the above with that in mind.

That assumes the allocation of capital provides no value to society. Mortgages, business loans, loans to governments (bonds), etc.

Regulatory capture, M&A corporate raiding, wiping out middle America one rotten deal at a time. The allocation of capital at the top has been demonstrably destructive to our society. It has enabled the near total destruction of our Constitutional Republic. You're all fucking heroes.

That isn't an absolute and you know it. Why even perpetuate the narrative, without pinpointing specific actions?

Someone pointed out M&A consolidation and regulatory capture. Specific actions with specific discussions, and a very small portion of the functions of these institutions.

I'm reminded of the Trotsky quote:

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

Ignoring the reality of how organizations function is probably the easiest way of dealing with the realities of day to day employment but that doesn't mean that you also get to ignore the unexpected all-hands meeting with the HR department...

It is feared and avoided at all costs, but well expected in the industry. Like taxes. :)

Do you think any company isn't the same? When your manager refers to you as a "resource" what do you think she means?

I will wager that all the people affected will get a decent package and the name GS on their CVs will still open doors.

At least it's honest and clear. People know where they stand, rather than http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/boss-admits-staff... . (And I suspect it ends up being a much fairer workplace for disadvantaged groups, if e.g. promotion is based on straight numbers rather than subjective "cultural values")

Of course they don't have "people". Every large organisation has a human resources department. The clue is in the name "human resources"; they are just resources.