While at Goldman Sachs, Greg Smith was a valuable but largely typical mid-level employee (as far as we can tell, anyway), but since resigning (and writing this op-ed for a little-known publication called The New York Times) he's become something of a figurehead for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Basically, anyone who sees banks like GS as morally corrupt cash cows with very litte going on in the redeeming-qualities department, is thinking, well duh, I knew it, about yesterday's open letter in the Times.
And of course we respect Greg for his honesty, clarity, and insider's view on a company that's notoriously media shy. But, is anyone else feeling like this whole thing is spinning out into something just a wee bit sensationalist? We're not calling it highly scientific research or anything, but we don't know anyone who works at the bank (or who's left the bank or even been laid off from the bank) who's felt a real sense of the same moral corruption in the ranks. That's not to say that we don't believe Smith when he says, "I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it," 'cause we do, and that sounds scary. But we're questioning the need for not one, but two huge features in the New York Times, detailing
what we all already know the dangers of biting the hand that feeds you.
Personally, we kinda suspect the post-departure rant of a former employee might look kinda similar whether they left a bank or a restaurant or a locally owned boutique (they just wouldn't get a two page spread and contributor title). But you tell us. Are an op-ed and its follow-up features, and all the surrounding hoopla, enough to enact change? Or just enough to sell a few papers? (The New York Times)
Photo: Via The New York Times