<p>^^If only more lawmakers had as much sense as that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do they make a lot of money compared to the the average American? Of course. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether they make more than they could have in the private legal sector, and the answer is almost certainly no.</p>
<p>Let's look at the facts. Here are the 2006 salaries for the top 10 law professors at the University of California (all campuses) and at the University of Virginia. While obviously I would like to make those kinds of salaries, keep in mind that these are professors at the very top of legal academia. The equivalent would be the partners at the top law firms, who obviously make far more. Furthermore, keep in mind that Obama was a part-time lecturer and would have therefore earned nowhere near the salaries posted below. I think it is hardly controversial to say that he would have made far more if he had gone to the private sector.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This assumes that law professors and biglaw associates work equally hard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This assumes that law professors and biglaw associates work equally hard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it doesn't. The argument put forth is not whether people choose academia for a higher quality of life, for obviously they do. The argument was strictly about money and the fastest way to become rich. Who makes more money - a top private sector lawyer or a top law professor? That's not a close call. </p>
<p>The relevance of this subtopic to the thread is that people chose investment banking over other career paths such as engineering because it paid far more, even though it also almost certainly involved longer work hours. Barack Obama's own personal career could therefore be said to be an indirect example of the proposal he is promoting because he clearly chose a career path out of law school that paid less than he could have made otherwise, although he surely also benefitted from an easier lifestyle.</p>
<p>"He's a leader. What do leaders do? They use their power and respect to influence others. If everyone in the world and history had your attitude, we'd still be a bunch of nomadic, warring tribes."</p>
<p>You need someone to tell you what to do? I sure as hell don't. I don't believe that the average person is stupid and needs an arrogant elitist to tell them what to do. We aren't where we are today because people like Barack Obama told us what to do.</p>
<p>"I believe Obama repudiated his dealings with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. "</p>
<p>Then you are naive as hell. He distanced himself from J Wright when it was starting to hurt his campaign. He sat in that hate-monger's church for 20 years, was married by him, had his children batptized by him, then wrote a best selling book based on one of his sermons, and you're telling me he didn't know that crap that came out of that guys mouth, but Sean Hannity could find out in less than a year? Oh please!</p>
<p>Obama's political career started with a state senate fundraiser in Bill Ayers's living room in 1995. Ayers at one point secured a $50 million grant from the federal government to "improve" schools in Chicago. He appointed Barack Obama as the head of the board that would decide how to distribute it. He wasn't 8 years old when he decided his path to power went through that murdering psychopath (and yes, the Weather Underground DID murder people). Obama is a radical socialist who finds himself very comfortable in the company of people like Bill Ayers.</p>
<p>"As stated above, half of the subprime loans, including a disproportionate percentage of the worst ones, were made by mortgage banks who were not forced to make those loans because they were not subject to the CRA and hence were completely subject to free market forces."</p>
<p>No, that is not true. 40% of mortgages were COMPELLED to be subprime loans. This number does not include subprime loans made by banks that were not subject to this legislation. </p>
<p>Liberals think that whatever gives them more control over people's lives is in the best interest of everyone's lives. I think the average American knows how to live his life a lot better than a bunch of arrogant Ivy leaguers in their ivory towers do. Barry needs to protect us from terrorists and then leave us alone.</p>
<p>^ Your, sir, are the definition of a dumbass right-winged nut. So by your logic, there should be no government, nobody should be told what to do. Ever hear of the dark ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and people fell into anarchy? You are basically saying that anarchy is a perfect form of government. </p>
<p>I suggest you stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, and open your mind, and your eyes, to the real world. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Liberals think that whatever gives them more control over people's lives is in the best interest of everyone's lives. I think the average American knows how to live his life a lot better than a bunch of arrogant Ivy leaguers in their ivory towers do. Barry needs to protect us from terrorists and then leave us alone.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>grow up</p>
<p>"You are basically saying that anarchy is a perfect form of government. "</p>
<p>No, of course you need justice to support everything.</p>
<p>"I suggest you stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, and open your mind, and your eyes, to the real world. "</p>
<p>Yeah, maybe Bill Maher and Rosie O'Donnell know better</p>
<p>"grow up"</p>
<p>Great argument</p>
<p>"Your, sir, are the definition of a dumbass right-winged nut."</p>
<p>If that's what you call someone who stands up for individual liberty and traditional American values, then that is what I am, you far left radical socialist loon.</p>
<p>ImaHero, you are right. The average person does not need someone to tell them what to do. But if you don't choose somebody to tell people what to do, everyone is going to try to tell everybody else what to do. So it's in the best interest for the entire nation for people to swallow their pride, and take direction. </p>
<p>Taking direction doesn't mean you lose all liberty and individuality. In fact, you can be an individual in almost all aspects of your life. There are just certain occasions where it is wise to follow the leader, and that is why we have a president.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then you are naive as hell. He distanced himself from J Wright when it was starting to hurt his campaign. He sat in that hate-monger's church for 20 years, was married by him, had his children batptized by him, then wrote a best selling book based on one of his sermons, and you're telling me he didn't know that crap that came out of that guys mouth, but Sean Hannity could find out in less than a year? Oh please!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, you're probably right. At the same time, Bush was quite comfortable with his drinking, carousing, ne'er-do-well lifestyle for most of his adult life until he finally realized that it was hurting his career. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama's political career started with a state senate fundraiser in Bill Ayers's living room in 1995. Ayers at one point secured a $50 million grant from the federal government to "improve" schools in Chicago. He appointed Barack Obama as the head of the board that would decide how to distribute it. He wasn't 8 years old when he decided his path to power went through that murdering psychopath (and yes, the Weather Underground DID murder people). Obama is a radical socialist who finds himself very comfortable in the company of people like Bill Ayers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And at the same time, Bush was (and presumably still is) quite comfortable with right-wing zealots such as Falwell and Robertson who, among other positions, have publicly blamed 9/11 on the gay community and attributed Ariel Sharon's debilitating stroke and coma as well as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to divine retribution for handing over land to the Palestinians. These are hardly words of tolerance. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, that is not true. 40% of mortgages were COMPELLED to be subprime loans. This number does not include subprime loans made by banks that were not subject to this legislation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you are wrong. Please check your facts more carefully. Like I pointed out, only FDIC-insured banks were compelled to originate a share of loans according to the CRA. But about half of all subprime loans were originated by mortgage banks that were not privy to FDIC insurance and were therefore not bound by the CRA. It is precisely those banks that were responsible for originating the majority of the problem loans. And, as I pointed out, if they were not originating loans to satisfy the CRA, then they must have been doing so to satisfy free market demand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Liberals think that whatever gives them more control over people's lives is in the best interest of everyone's lives. I think the average American knows how to live his life a lot better than a bunch of arrogant Ivy leaguers in their ivory towers do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Again, seems to me that much of the right wing - especially the religious right - never seems to miss any opportunity to tell other people what to do. They certainly seem to want control over other people's lives. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. You say that Americans know how to live their lives and doesn't need government to boss them around. So under what grounds does the religious right have to prevent gay marriage? After all, like you said, Americans ought to know how to live their lives, right? So if two people of the same sex want to marry, why is that such a problem for the right wing? Similarly if they want to watch pornography, use contraceptives, intake marijuana or any other drug, engage in prostitution - then as long as these activities are engaged by freely consenting adults and nobody is getting hurt (except for perhaps the participants themselves), then why does the right wing always try to interfere?</p>
<p>Then of course there is the long and sordid history of the US backing right-wing dictatorships around the world. The people of Guatemala didn't ask to be ruled by the US-backed military junta of Carlos Castillo. In fact, they voted for Jacobo Arbenz. Via Operations PBFortune and PBSuccess was he toppled by the CIA. Similarly, the people of Iran voted for Mohammad Mossadegh, but the US toppled him and installed the Shah as an autocratic dictator. The US never asked the people of Iran what they wanted. The US currently backs dictatorships Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Egypt. The US certainly never asked the people of those countries who they wanted to lead them (probably because the US is scared by who they might choose.)</p>
<p>Otherwise, while you may have a problem when the left wing tells people what to do, but you have no problem when the right wing tells people what to do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
bunch of arrogant Ivy leaguers in their ivory towers do
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The last time I checked, Bush was a graduate of the top two Ivies: Harvard and Yale. Or consider some of the Republican contenders for the nomination in 2012. The winner of the CPAC poll for three years straight is Mitt Romney, who has not one but two degrees from Harvard. Bobby Jindal is a graduate of Brown. Jon Huntsman Jr. is a graduate of UPenn.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but would you guys shut up and not talk about politics here?</p>
<p>The point of the whole thread is to discuss politics and the implications of Obama's statement...</p>
<p>I just read through the thread.</p>
<p>Get 'em sakky.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point of the whole thread is to discuss politics and the implications of Obama's statement...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... as it relates to the investment banking and engineering industries. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like ImaHero is trying to derail this thread and make it purely a conservative vs liberal debate.</p>
<p>For the record, I see nothing wrong with Obama touting engineering over Ibanking despite the fact that he never did so himself, just like I see nothing wrong with Bush recommending that students study hard in school, especially the sciences and math, despite the fact that he never did so himself. Frankly, if I was born into the world of wealth and privilege that Bush was, I probably wouldn't have put much time into studying math/science either. Those topics are hard - why put in the hard work if you don't have to? </p>
<p>The major problem is, as the OP pointed out, that Ibanking jobs simply paid so much better than the engineering jobs did, and continue to do so even now. That's why many of the best engineering students from the very best schools such as MIT or Stanford don't really want to take jobs as engineers. Engineering companies don't want to pay their engineers high salaries, but seem to have no problem in paying millions upon millions in investment banking fees. </p>
<p>Heck, Ibankers often times became rich as a consequence of hurting engineering jobs and salaries. For example, the merger of HP and EDS will result in about 25k layoffs, many of them engineers. But the Ibankers from JPMorgan and Evercore who built the deal got rich.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, I see nothing wrong with Obama touting engineering over Ibanking despite the fact that he never did so himself, just like I see nothing wrong with Bush recommending that students study hard in school, especially the sciences and math, despite the fact that he never did so himself.
[/quote]
Frankly, I don't have a problem with this either. The irony is funny though.</p>
<p>I think the true problem arises when he starts applying liberal educational policies to an area that really doesn't warrant it. When Eisenhower launched his educational policies it was geared to benefit the smartest among the US population, to push them into technical careers. Now we have things like NCLB which caters to the least intelligent (and therefore less likely to add value to our economy regardless of education).</p>
<p>sakky has it right. I wanted this thread to be about the value society places on the different occupations and what they are paid. Nothing political. It was not intended to be about Obama or about government policies. If government encourages engineering, fine. But ultimately it will be businesses paying engineers more that will attract people to become engineers and businesses not paying twenty something ibankers millions which will stop attracting people away from engineering into ibanking jobs.</p>