City Bonus - Why does the UK media hate it?

[TheAnimus]

people like us would never receive a £50million bonus[/i]. In my case, and from what you say yours too, that is not a problem because we are content. But say someone was no less driven and talented than anyone else, is it right that doors should be closed to them on the basis of class? Of course not. But mainly the fact that it is not humanly justifiable that someone should receive £50million while the person who cleans under their desk has to worry about keeping a roof over their head.

And the point I was trying to make is that being an office cleaner is stressful not because of "OMG I can't get this coffee stain out of that carpet tile, WTF will I do?". It's stressful because of "I work undocumented for a contract agency who pay me £4 an hour to work 60 hours a week, how will I feed clothe house and bring up my children?". Maszlow's hierarchy of needs, you see. When your most basic needs cannot be met of course you are under more stress than someone worrying whether his bonus will be £30million or £50million this year.

I earnt £4.20 an hour as a kitchen porter, because i was good n fast at it. Now had it not been for a desire to earn more money i wouldn't of bettered myself, i wouldn't of gone to uni, i'd of been happy with it, and i'm not saying i make a massive impact on the world, but everyone like me, who is motivated by greed actually does help. There is no way on earth i'd take my present job over KP'ing if they paid the same. I'd probably live about 5 years longer too.

If your earning £4an hour, its your fault. Sorry but thats life.

It was my fault i got chucked out of secondary school. Granted i could of sued one of the teachers (oh, no legal aid) when i found out what fully transpired, but still, it was my fault, because i could of avoided it. The i was 13 excuse doesn't wash, the my sister was having a nurvus break down whilst my mum was given 3 months to live (incorrectly) isn't extenuating circumstance, because i could of avoided leaving main stream ed, and most likely got a fair few a*s.

I could also of got a job that pays an extra £10k a year for pretty much the same work, but guess what, the CV i sent was terrible.

Now why does it hurt that someone else is on £50m. Can't you just be happy for them, they earnt it. They genuinally earnt it, its not as if they won the lottery. Years of hard work, dedication, some luck and some very good judgment calls will of lead too it.

[revol68]

I've been saying all along its a case of working hard. If everyone got £50m, it would become devalued (inflation). But it would still be £50m.

For it too be such a larger than average sum, it has to be a case of everyone has the opertunity to work better/harder than most.

Now, given that the vast majority of people lack the knowledge (same way i would never be a good english teacher, spelling age of a 10 year old, with bad hand writing) the drive, and the energy to do so. But there is still nothing stopping you learning, enless you have a learning disability of course

well firstly the idea that it's just about hardwork is awfully niave, I suppouse you think the reason why Cambridge and Oxford have so many kids from private schools is purely because they work harder?

Secondly not everyone can work so hard, not out of laziness but because people have different respsonsibilites. A kid who has to go work from 14 isn't going to be able to spend so much time studying than some little home counties princess whose only economic concern is whether pappa is going to get her a KA or a Mini. A young girl minding her younger siblings whilst her mum goes out to work nights just to keep a roof over their heads has more immediate concerns than swotting up on business studies.

Thirdly a nurse could work harder than a miner in a Soviet socialist realist film and still would never earn anything close to a city slicker.

Fourthly I couldn't care how hard city boys work for their bonus's, my point is that why is their hard work valued more than the hard work of a teacher, social worker, nurse, firefighter or metro driver? The answer of course lies in capitalism and within those assumptions it's perfectly rational, the problem is that the rest of us don't think in such terms. We think in terms of needs, and services, we know what happens if we have no nurses or teachers and as such we value them.

[TheAnimus]

I also want to know why this is about class?

Most places will only employ graduates. I gave a lot of my spare time at uni to AimHigher and Widening Participation (both dfsed funded) the sole purpose of which was to show the few kids in poor schools that actually have potential how to go about going to uni, and why they would want too.

TV and the internet are great levelers. Same goes with public schools.

Class is the wrong word, Understanding is a better word (sounds less supremest than IQ).

If you lack IQ, well your never going to earn money through smarts. As such you will be in less demand.

Thats not to say you can as i did earn more than others doing ****ty jobs, i probably only got the extra 20p an hour KP'ing because i've long arms and large hands (6"4). Thou its very unlikely you will ever earn a lot more than everyone enless you work hard, and are considerably better at your vocation than the average man on the street.

[badass]

Fourthly I couldn't care how hard city boys work for their bonus's, my point is that why is their hard work valued more than the hard work of a teacher, social worker, nurse, firefighter or metro driver? The answer of course lies in capitalism and within those assumptions it's perfectly rational, the problem is that the rest of us don't think in such terms. We think in terms of needs, and services, we know what happens if we have no nurses or teachers and as such we value them.

There are more teachers. More people are capable of being teachers and more people want to be teachers. In order to get people to work for them, these city banks have to pay more.
You cant have a niche that has a very high bar of entry and a generally undesirable job that pays the average wage and get applicants. It doesn't happen.

Now are you going to drop the "if everyone was a big city banker" argument or are you goingn to respond to my counter argument without going circular?

[revol68]

I also want to know why this is about class?

Most places will only employ graduates. I gave a lot of my spare time at uni to AimHigher and Widening Participation (both dfsed funded) the sole purpose of which was to show the few kids in poor schools that actually have potential how to go about going to uni, and why they would want too.

TV and the internet are great levelers. Same goes with public schools.

Class is the wrong word, Understanding is a better word (sounds less supremest than IQ).

If you lack IQ, well your never going to earn money through smarts. As such you will be in less demand.

Thats not to say you can as i did earn more than others doing ****ty jobs, i probably only got the extra 20p an hour KP'ing because i've long arms and large hands (6"4). Thou its very unlikely you will ever earn a lot more than everyone enless you work hard, and are considerably better at your vocation than the average man on the street.

How is it not about class?

Isn't it about economic inequality?

I'd be interested in how you define class, cos i've a feeling it's according to some very silly criteria.

[revol68]

Aiding a few working class kids to climb up the ladder doesn't change the ladder.

[Moby-Dick]

Oxbridge has a high grade requirement - if you don't get the grades , it doesn't matter what background you come from.

[revol68]

There are more teachers. More people are capable of being teachers and more people want to be teachers. In order to get people to work for them, these city banks have to pay more.
You cant have a niche that has a very high bar of entry and a generally undesirable job that pays the average wage and get applicants. It doesn't happen.

Now are you going to drop the "if everyone was a big city banker" argument or are you goingn to respond to my counter argument without going circular?

of god your dim.

I know why banks pay out more to their city slickers, it makes perfect sense under capitalism, these folks are directly involved in making billions of the banks (mind you it's with other peoples money) . I know why teachers and care workers get paid less.

My argument is against the economic rationale that leads to this, capitalism.

[revol68]

Oxbridge has a high grade requirement - if you don't get the grades , it doesn't matter what background you come from.

Thanks for that, I'll put it alongside the other profound things I've learn today, right beside water being wet.

My point is that it's clearly not just because of hardwork and natural intelligence that kids from private schools meet these grades.

[TheAnimus]

well firstly the idea that it's just about hardwork is awfully niave, I suppouse you think the reason why Cambridge and Oxford have so many kids from private schools is purely because they work harder?

Secondly not everyone can work so hard, not out of laziness but because people have different respsonsibilites. A kid who has to go work from 14 isn't going to be able to spend so much time studying than some little home counties princess whose only economic concern is whether pappa is going to get her a KA or a Mini. A young girl minding her younger siblings whilst her mum goes out to work nights just to keep a roof over their heads has more immediate concerns than swotting up on business studies.

Thirdly a nurse could work harder than a miner in a Soviet socialist realist film and still would never earn anything close to a city slicker.

Fourthly I couldn't care how hard city boys work for their bonus's, my point is that why is their hard work valued more than the hard work of a teacher, social worker, nurse, firefighter or metro driver? The answer of course lies in capitalism and within those assumptions it's perfectly rational, the problem is that the rest of us don't think in such terms. We think in terms of needs, and services, we know what happens if we have no nurses or teachers and as such we value them.

Nurses. Guess what, these people are valued, average starting salery of a london qualified nurse is £30k cha ching. Now thats more than graduates in london start on (22k from dfsed figures).

Now like most people i want to have a roof over my head, thats not too far from work, zone 2 was the only compramise i could afford, 10k a year.

Nurses get key worker housing benefits generally worth well in excess of £20k a year thanks to londons insaine houes prices.

Yes, these poor undervalued nurses, who are having to live on baked beans and only have two spare rooms and one on suite in the terrice house they own 70% of at 25.

Teachers are paid £6k less, but thats because GCSEs can be taught by well stupid people, if i'd got a 3rd, i'd be teaching maths to kids in a year from now, that was my backup plan. The paperwork puts me off too much.

Come on, thats fair, call it a effective net of about 40k. Thats a city worker on 60k + 15k bonus gross to match.

Now, once again you seam to forget who funds the majority of the NHS, who is actually making the pensions worth something despite the best efforts? Are these things not valued?

Venture Capitalists are vultures, you will loose billions if your idea makes it because of their help. But at the same time you will earn billions and bring something great to the world.

The money invested does actaully help real people, it will create more jobs, more work to be done.

[TheAnimus]

How is it not about class?

Isn't it about economic inequality?

I'd be interested in how you define class, cos i've a feeling it's according to some very silly criteria.

I don't belive class to be defined by IQ.

Which pretty much is the only thing that will stop you going to uni.


Oxbridge. Guess what, they wouldn't even look at me.

Why is it more private people go there, because private school is a better educational training, else people wouldn't pay for it.

Now i've an intimidating score in certain types of mental tests, infact i'm in the all time top 5 that woman had ever seen for a certain type of geometric pattern. Does that make me a different class?

A dear friend of mine is from an unfrasionable end of euston, which is a bit of a ghetto, i don't like visiting her parents after dark, would never walk to station wearing my suit. She got her a distinction in her funded masters. What class is she? (her salery is now more than her mum's, her dad, well who knows).

I've never felt so accepted because i'm damn good at my job as i do in the city. Uni and academia there is far more snobbery about what GCSEs you've got. What your parents do etc.

Class is used as an excuse, stop it. Having private school makes life easyer, guess what it would of for me too, but i'm not moaning about it.

[TheAnimus]

Aiding a few working class kids to climb up the ladder doesn't change the ladder.

missed the point. There are others doing it this year too.

Its not about helping them climb the ladder, its the fact they can climb the ladder without our help, most of what we did made people think "hmm i'd LIKE to do that".

We didn't give out vouchers that can be redemed for one free Ba in Physcology!

[TheAnimus]

Thanks for that, I'll put it alongside the other profound things I've learn today, right beside water being wet.

My point is that it's clearly not just because of hardwork and natural intelligence that kids from private schools meet these grades.

What about the non-private ones who get in?

are they not proof that if you've got the inteligance all you need do is work hard?

Not everyone can goto oxbridge, so they get the pick of the crop, thats life. I'd like a 6foot blond with a great sense of humor and an understanding of .net so i could moan about work problems too. Who enjoys cinematic greats and paintball. I'm this rare girlexcists, just she will have the pick of the men, so should i complain its not fair if she dosen't choose me?

[revol68]

The money invested does actaully help real people, it will create more jobs, more work to be done.

This is exactly correct, and on the other hand if it ****s it leads to economic slow down, less jobs.

But even when it runs smoothly, so what, it creates more jobs, brilliant, whoppe doo, just what we need more jobs, more ways of keeping the accumulative cycle going. Yep lucky us, more work to be done, more call centres, more production of things we don't need. Hey maybe we'll get Mach 20's before we've raped the world of all resources and are living under the sea from global warming.

This is exactly the point, capitalism doesn't create jobs and things on the basis of actual human needs but on the basis of accumulation, on what can turn a profit. Ole Mr Nike doesn't make overpriced trainers cos he loves them, or has a passion for them, he does so in order to accumulate.

There's tonnes of work needing to be done all around the world, yet the simple fact is it's not profitable, no one is hiring for these. You will however find a sudden need to call people up at teatime and try and pimp them another credit card. Hey no worries, got to keep the treadmill running.

[badass]

of god your dim.

I know why banks pay out more to their city slickers, it makes perfect sense under capitalism, these folks are directly involved in making billions of the banks (mind you it's with other peoples money) . I know why teachers and care workers get paid less.

My argument is against the economic rationale that leads to this, capitalism.

Find me a rich country in the world that isn't under capitalism.
Its not perfect but long term it generally raises the quality of living of even the poorest over time.
Secondly, I'm not the lazy Grammar educated fool that decided that the world should move for him, his way and pay him what he's worth, rather than getting off his arse and working hard, doing things that he doesn't enjoy doing and getting more than £13,000 per year.
I started from a more humble background than you and have done a lot better so I'd say that makes you the "dim" one.
I cant be arsed to hear any more of the absolute crap you put forward as arguments is its pretty obvious that you haven't got a leg to stand on in this case and just resort to personal insults as soon as your arguments are shown fro the complete empty rants they are.

At least others that take issue with the bonuses are putting forward something construcitve.

/Ignore list added.

[revol68]

Of course there isn't a country in the world not under capitalism, it's a fecking international system. Oh are you going to claim that the Soviet Union wasn't essentially capitalist in nature? Because it was.

Secondly I said I went to a grammar school, I never said anything about my background, humble or not. Going to a grammar school was an eye opener for the very reason that I wasn't from a middle class background.

I'm not too bothered about my 13,000, I mean i'd not say no to more, but fundamentally my issue isn't about this or that salary but the world I live in the world that I don't want my children to live in.

Now you may call me a waster or dim if you want, but i'm someone who learns because I want to learn, who values knowledge in itself, and who takes a critical interest in history and the society I live in. If your happy with the world as it is, bully for you, but those of us who aren't, everyone whose struggling to make a better world, whether it's cleaners striking for better pay or health insurance or opposing hospital cuts and militarist adventures, well we'll keep fighting, and at the end of the day we might not get what we want but we atleast defined our own desires, we atleast asserted our subjectivity in the world.