Costs going Sky high

[TheAnimus]

I dunno tbh. Why do they spend £50m on one football player when someone costing a fiftieth of that could do a better job?

I don't know :S I honestly know nothing about football, I would only hazard a guess its fear of an un-known commodity.

Ouch. You're gonna get flak for that!

Ah nm. It's just a Pink Floyd lyric that seemed appropriate .

I guess, don't get me wrong I think the philosphies behind a lot of peoples lifes leave a lot to be desired. At what point does a hobby becomes consipicious consumption. Why are so many people concerned with say lack of free university tutition when so many people are starving.

But in relation to this, it is so incredibly simple, if people don't like the amount of money given to a trader, or a developer or a quant. Get into their industry, that way the supply and demand curve will even out a bit. If they are not able to, then all they are left with is to attack a society in which we are not all equal, the problem is that why should I work a remotely stressful job? If they all renumerated the same odds are I could easily do something a lot less stressful, and I'm not even on a trading desk anymore (that was exhuasting!).

[fred1979]

i dont actually watch tv but this is sad news.. the world is defo not becoming a better place

[santa claus]

If they all renumerated the same odds are I could easily do something a lot less stressful, and I'm not even on a trading desk anymore (that was exhuasting!).

I don't think there's a general objection to appropriate reward if your job is stressful or the risks high; it's just that the ceiling for reward is a lot higher in the Banking sector. A police officer, fireman/woman, soldier etc may lay his/her life on the line in the course of duty but they won't get a massive financial bonus in recognition.

It doesn't seem right. It doesn't feel right and it isn't right for some anonymous city slicker to be creaming enormous additional reward for...erm...doing their job. I'm sure their salary is very healthy without the extras.

Greed is not good imo.

i dont actually watch tv but this is sad news.. the world is defo not becoming a better place

Thanks for reminding me we've gone way off topic! My concern is all the Freeview channels will blip into blackness one by one. It's only a matter of time before, mid programme, a message pops up saying if you want to see the rest of the show, you'll have to subscribe to Sky .

[TheAnimus]

Greed is not good imo.

It can make people into thourghly unpleasent types. But it also gets work done.

People will do things that society is wanting for it, I'm thinking here of roles that have little/no recognition in society.

Sewer workers for instance are paid quite highly because the work is unpleasent, its hot, smelly etc.

For me I have little issue with a star trading desk having a few million to splash on bonuses, I do have great issue with tube drivers going on strike on boxing day.

There are many other trading organisations, indeed setting up a hedge fund style regulated firm is not really that hard. There is competition, perhaps not enough but I don't think its such a monopoly that I would start to set up my own.

The tube on the other hand. This has a complete and total grip over anyone traveling in London, we've a congestion charge, roads that can't coupe with even the bus level of traffic, its the only public transport option. Building another one is out the of the question due to incredible costs.

However have you seen how hard it is to apply to be a tube driver, they get more applicants for that job than they do for any job I've ever been involved in hiring for, by a factor of hundreds, I'd hazard a guess taht most are suitable to press the button.

So it doesn't in my mind seem right that say a tube driver is been given so much money, espesually when travel costs for people in outer zones are so high (poorer people often have to live further out, making this almost a tax on those unable to live in zone1!).

Ultimately a lot of the people getting these bonuses are doing so at the expensive of people who have 'excess' monies, money in trust funds, pensions etc. Its almost a kind of amicable wealth distrabution.

The tube drivers are ulitmately getting their money by holding people to ransom. So its odd, but I'm more outraged by a £40k tube driver, than a £400k trader.

[oolon]

I don't have a problem with bonuses. My problem is are these people really so good that they should get such high ones, yes I think some of them should particular the one who still made money in the falling market. However seeing as even "dumb" people like me, managed to make a 50% return on investments from now to pre-crash. I don't really think the majority of them are doing anything special at all, and frankly do not need to be that motivated to go to work.

While the money is good for the economy we have seen its not there during the "bad" times, when you need it so much so being so dependant on it companied to "normal" companies is probably not wise.

Of course the government will get over 50% of the bonus pool due to tax so its not so bad, as the government would have use believe.

[santa claus]

It can make people into thourghly unpleasent types......

A tube driver can only get a 'bonus' by working longer hours; he/she won't get a bonus for driving the trains well. I doubt that you'd like it much if after a driver delivers hundreds of thousands of passengers safely to their destinations every day, he could get a mammoth bonus?

Traders can get paid a hideous bonus for just being lucky and ordinary working people, like tube drivers, perceive this to be money for nothing.

Tube drivers don't fix the travel costs and they're certainly not holding people to ransom. Their 'crime' might be wanting to be able to feed their family whilst the hoi polloi of overpaid city bankers can throw money around with gay abandon.

Besides, you have a bike so stop moaning about the Tube .

My problem is are these people really so good that they should get such high ones....

Nope, they're not but they expect their handout because that's the culture. And no conservative (there's no point calling it a coalition, the libdems are just fallguys) government will change that.

[TheAnimus]

Tube drivers don't fix the travel costs and they're certainly not holding people to ransom. Their 'crime' might be wanting to be able to feed their family whilst the hoi polloi of overpaid city bankers can throw money around with gay abandon.

Besides, you have a bike so stop moaning about the Tube .

Bikes in mighty need of a new rear tire, and the soonest I can the parts is Sat , at least the weather is crap today.

The problem I have is they do help fix the costs by striking, if they want to 'feed their family' (quite how much money they need for taht I don't know, but I'm fairly sure a family of four can be fed on a fortnum and masons diet for less than £40k per year, if one cuts down on the beluga). When they strike there is no alternative, espesually if someone is mobility impared, yet not enough for the free travel pass. Its the fact that they extort money by been in a monopolistic posistion. I have no quarms with the crew of say National Express striking on a route when they have Megabus for competition. It is the no alternative nature, its extortion pure and simple, imagine if a fund manager felt that his 0.5M bonus wasn't enough, want some pension left, well I'm not transfering the money back, i'm on strike.

Nope, they're not but they expect their handout because that's the culture. And no conservative (there's no point calling it a coalition, the libdems are just fallguys) government will change that.

And it was under who's stewardship we saw this massively expand?

Our governmental spending has become so big, we are in such a massive defecit, but a lot of the money was coming from the finance sector. Why?

Because the yankie doodles squeezed them out, and we took them in, serves em right for disposing of our Tea if you ask me. After Enron people were a bit upset at how easy it was for a firm to blatently missrepresent its value, as such a knee jerk reaction in the form of crippling regulation was created which drove a large amount of firms overseas. This is why wallstreet is so comparatively insignificant for banking vs 15 years ago, yet still the largest for hedge fundery.

Now if you had a tax and spend policy, with a massive leaning on spend, how do you afford that? The city was this golden cow, it just poored money in, which could then be redistrabuted and all that other well intentioned soclalist stupidity. It is also worth looking at the wage distrabution changes under Blair and Brown vs say Thatcher and Major. There is a big gap between the rich and the poor the like of which we've never seen before, a property boom which in relation to median wage (important caviat) we've never seen before. The poor were getting poorer, but the middle class were getting richer, and the rich, well they just eclipsed anything we'd seen before, the rich class actually grew dramatically.

And this is what grinds my gears so much, feel free to be pissed off your not as rich as you want, but either A) realise its your life choices to blame, and say if you want money do something more profitiable or B) revolution and take what you want by force.

If you just make people feel bad for providing a service which is been paid by a market determined rate (rather than extorted via striking tubes) then they might continue going elsewhere.

[roachcoach]

Tbh where trading and finance is concerned, you could mostly replace with word "bonus" with "commission".

Its a difficult one and there's (usually) too much hatred for the bankers to get a sensible perception.

I mostly share opinions with TheAnimus - if people have such issue with it - then can go do it themselves, no-one is stopping them. Usually then a raft of excuses are trotted out about why they shouldn't have to

Equally, businesses aren't charities - do you honestly think if a hiring manager could get Little Timmy from along the road to do the same quality of work as <dude from another country> at a fraction of the salary, they'd hesitate? Of course not. The thing is though, they usually cant.


Edit: As for politicians/government - in this day and age anyone who wants that job isn't fit to do that job imo.

[santa claus]

Well, I guess we'll just have to live with bankers and tube drivers; the former will be able to stock up at fortnum and Masons (and not cut down on the beluga) and the latter will strike whenever an imbalance in their pay/cost of living occurs. If £40k is such a rewarding wage in London, how about making £40k the ceiling for bonuses? Ha.

Btw, I don't feel it's about being 'as rich as you want'. I know there is no way of persuading you that money isn't the be all and end all. I would say most people will be content with a modest life but without the inequity, no, obscenity, of some people getting daft rewards for taking massive risks with other people's money.

Commission sounds like an attempted euphemism invented by the greedy.

Gawd, perhaps they don't want to 'go and do it for themselves'. Who wants to become like that? It isn't the aspiration of everyone to receive more than they're worth; just for there to be fairer distribution of the trillions we claim we don't have. It is a travesty to bleed the poor for the mistakes of the suited gormless .

Hey, what's happened here? I was on about the telly!

[TheAnimus]

everyone is in agreement that the TV is crap, and so we moved onto other things.

the thing about the tube drivers is the way in which they behave is wrong, morally and economically. They get money by holding people to randsom due to a posistion of priviledge.

Bankers are not in this situtation, there are no shortage of funds out there, but evidently there is a shortage of of fund managers.

Every bank is recruiting, every hedge fund is always looking. How can I apply to be a tube driver? Oh wait, I can't, I don't know the right people.

[roachcoach]

My commission name/analogy wasn't an attempt at that, just usually said "payments" are on a sliding scale related to performance so in my view they're closer to that. Are they sensible? No idea - someone makes £100m quid for a company, a 1% kickback is very likely worth it to the company to keep that kind of staff member on/happy/etc. Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is how all places operate - for me the question is more...who is losing the money they are 'making'....but I digress

I agree, not everyone want's to do it, trouble is though - if people are prepared to pay for it, it is (whatever "it" may be) worth it. Look at (cant believe I'm posting this) footballers. Kicking a ball around and running after it. 'Worth' 100k per week to me. Nope. To the people who pay it - clearly, otherwise they wouldn't pay it.

And to play devils advocate further, these folks on the stupidly high earnings also pay a stupid amount of tax (evaders not withstanding) thereby doing more than most to help contribute to the national spend pot.

[santa claus]

How can I apply to be a tube driver?

You don't want to be a tube driver, it doesn't pay enough (for you).

Look at (cant believe I'm posting this) footballers. Kicking a ball around and running after it. 'Worth' 100k per week to me. Nope. To the people who pay it - clearly, otherwise they wouldn't pay it.

Don't worry, I've already sullied myself with a comment on footballers' salary earlier in the thread. The whole sport thing is out of control.

And to play devils advocate further, these folks on the stupidly high earnings also pay a stupid amount of tax (evaders not withstanding) thereby doing more than most to help contribute to the national spend pot.

Their tax paying benevolence is so kind of them. Like Xerxes in 300, he too was kind, he said so. Providing you worship him and give him everything he asks for, the hedonistic, power hungry, greedy get. Sounds familiar .

[roachcoach]

Xerxes is taking it a bit far - paying tax/NI is as close as a great many people come to doing anything for society.

Its something that the media never captures: "<Company> to pay 6 billion in bonuses - get your mob on and protest", neglecting to mention nearly 3 billion of that flows directly back in taxes.

For example, average nurses earn a little over 20k but lets call it 25k to be safe. The tax on a single million quid bonus would pay 20 nurses for a year. Now the fact that the (any) government rolls up said public money and smokes it is an entirely different debate (as is the crazy low nurse wage)

Its a silly amount of cash to be sure but only looking at part of the picture is, imo, disingenuous. Is it 'right' folks get that kind of money for moving numbers around? Well, if people are prepared to pay the money for it I can't very well stop them so I'm just thankful (or still naive enough to still have lingering hope) that the tax raked in from it is put to good use. I don't grudge it since I'm a subscriber of the belief that if you care that much about other people being "overpaid for what they do" go do it yourself


NB: There's a lot of "you" and variants thereof in this post - its not actually aimed at any individual

[santa claus]

Xerxes is taking it a bit far - paying tax/NI is as close as a great many people come to doing anything for society......cut.....

Yes, but it's not as if what they pay is a charitable donation. Indeed, it is known that those who consider they pay too much tax will do everything they can to avoid paying it. I don't know many nurses with off-shore accounts, property in the South of France or chalets in Switzerland.

I don't regard it disingenuous to discuss the ridiculously high city bonuses. The amounts dished out are a matter of plain fact.

NB: There's a lot of "you" and variants thereof in this post - its not actually aimed at any individual

Point understood .

Btw, people who are dedicated, caring, human, hardworking and an absolute inspiration in society are, imo, the ones who deserve bonuses. I'll leave it to you to decide if this description befits nurses or bankers.

[roachcoach]

I meant discussing them itself isn't disingenuous - discussing them without taking all the aspects into account is.

I quite agree on your last point, though fortunately the folks doing this work aren't in it for the money. They're doing it because they want to and those individuals are almost without exception better at it than the rest.