City bonuses

[Jeremy]

Bob and spadetown make good points, they've chosen lifestlyes that work for them. Whether your aim is to have as much spare time as possible, or to do a job you enjoy, or to make as much money as possible... it's your choice. I don't understand the point of criticising people's chosen lines of work or the amount of money they've earned.

[spadetownboy]

good point as well jeremy no point criticising anybodys career/lifestyle/moneymaking choice we,re all big people and capable enough of making those decisions. as a registered nurse i have choice pouring out of my ears and although i still practice in my chosen field there are so many other fields that with my skills and knowledge i am well capable of branching off to,but im at a stage now when i am very appreciative of having 4 days off per week while at the same time providing quite capably for the family and myself so at present i see no need to change.i think however the problem others have had with this thread is that while the bonuses presently being paid in the city are excessive and the bods who are receiving them may or not deserve them, that is the field of expertise they have choosen to work in and if it results in getting a nice juicy bonus every once in a while then fair play to them.

[James]

I see your point Spadetownboy but I still worry about a society where your life chances rely so heavily on the circumstances into which you're born. Isn't fairness to all the measure of a civilized society? It seems that the rich can get away with anything these days. They pay accountants to minimise their tax bills and lawyers to find loopholes in the law. Nepotism has always been with us. But recent trends indicate the emergence of a new breed of super-rich (getting richer by the day) while povery is entrenched among certain communities. Nobody is saying we should all earn the same but surely there must be some way to redirect some of the excess at the top down to those who need it without stifling the economy? I worry we're getting more like the US every day. Yes, New York is a great place to visit. But if I was a poor person there with no medical insurance I might be less enthusiastic about it.

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[Brendan]

Well it?s easy then. Get the poor to start providing services that the rich are willing to pay more money for.

I think it is called capitalism.

[downsouth]

There is a difference between the earnings f city financial bods and those who are senior management CEO level in a FTSE company. You'll actually find that the former has far less responsibility/accountability but their performance is as far as can be said based on their own efforts whereas a CEO has far more responsibility/accountability and scutiny however their performance is far to hard to define with things like 'total shareholder return' and the waxing and waning of the share price.

To top it off though it is the CEO who will go to jail and be harrassed when things go bad and in the scheme of things earns nothing compared to the first group.

Traders, Fund Managers, Hedge Fund Managers, Privaty Equity and Investment Bank head honcho's: Masters of the Universe - are in a completely different stratosphere to your bog standard CEO of BP (?2m).

In saying all this I don't begrudge any of them. Poverty is an absolute not a relative issue therefore provided there aren't children in the streets malnourished, we have access to health and education for all at the point of delivery then it is fine.

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[James]

Alan - on your point about an "imaginative and simple form of redistribution", does anyone know any theories about this or countries where such a scheme exists?

[mockney piers]

Is that the height of ambition we have for the quality of life for those on the lowest rungs of society? Enough food to avoid starvation, the option to got to school for their little'uns and the ability to get health care when the drudgery of such a life takes it's inevitable toll on their health.

Can't we aim for a couple of more fulfilling goals than that.

Look at him, he's got a slice of bread, his kid's got his head in a book and that passing ambulance will stop to help him once his tuberculosis brought on by living on the street in proximity to unculled badgers brings him near death; he's fiiine.

Wahe, we've practically a utopia.

[Brendan]

It is an interesting question. In the world which we are currently building what should be considered the bare necessities for life to ensure a level playing field for future generations? Should they be more than just food, shelter, clothing and access to health and education?

[DaveR]

The two issues, of extreme wealth and apparently entrenched relative poverty provide a neat contrast, but have no causative connection. The hedge fund managers are no more responsible for the plight of those at the bottom than anybody else. However, the right incentives might encourage people with 'excess' wealth to invest it in projects that benefit the wider community. (Obviously Lord Harris tried that recently and things didn't go too well)

In any event there was some research published recently that suggested that the extra 'happiness' provided by income above a level that gave a reasonable standard of living was negligible, and this chimes with common sense - lots of posts indicate that people have made rational choices in favour of intangible quality of life factors over more money.

City bonuses in themselves are not a problem - they don't hurt anyone. Trying to enable real social mobility is a whole different question, wothout any easy answers.

[mockney piers]

>> The two issues, of extreme wealth and apparently entrenched relative poverty provide a neat contrast, but have no causative connection.

Indeed indeed Dave. In fact I have no issue with city bonuses, they're really just an excuse for some sanctimonious bleating by the press.

I do have an issue with ridiculous fat cat salaries; not morally as such, but because these people are often really pretty terrible at their job for such ridiculous renumeration.

It's very much like resenting the paucity of genuine talent in football, coupled with the stupidity and short-sightedness of the powers that be in a game currently awash with cash that gives rise to the likes of emile heskey on 60k a week.

If businesses want to behave like that, then that's their prerogative, don't expect me to respect these people though.

And when they go on to be paid almost as much at the taxpayers expense on quango advisory boards, ID card implementation projects, NHS It Schemes, olympic committees and the like, I begin to seethe.

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[downsouth]

It is the old right wing rhetoric but rich people provide jobs for poorer people who would not otherwise find gainful employment - Hoxton, Lordship Lane beong examples. You may not be 'rich' however to but in LL right now is anything from 300K upwards (for a flat) and such people have spare cash to spend on leisure and recreation hence the number of shops sustained on LL employing locals that would not survive for a month on Nunhead Lane, West Norwood High Street or Walworth Road.

The key is social mobility. If children are educated and inspired to achieve they invariably will. But they should not think there is a safety net ready to surround them should they not wish to do so - see 80% of children I went to school with. We ahve had so many recent incomers to London and the UK who have found employment very easily and well paid at that. Can we not learn some lessons and stop hating the rich?

[SeanMacGabhann]

downsouth

if that 80% of children you mention did actually aspire to achieve, so we had 100% aspiration, how would they all fit into the well paid jobs? Which comes first, the lack of aspiration or the realisation that the system is designed toreward the top percentile and REQUIRES that the majority are doing much less-well paid jobs?

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[citizenED]

Hello, John Doe here - in my family we are all looked after - I have a decent job that pays very well, and my mrs has a part-time job that she loves. we eat well, we have several holidays a year. I drive a big Beamer, the mrs a smart little run-around. I wear saville row suits and the Mrs has all the designer wear she cares for. Kids go to great schools and have all the latest gadgets. Oh, I am forgetting my daughter, ******, She lives in the cupboard under the stairs. We keep her on a frugal diet and she wears all the hand me downs of the others. We get her to do all the cooking, cleaning and washing. she's up pretty late most nights getting it done - but then someones got to do it.

I was worried about posting this until i read some of the comments on this thread. But now I know that people won't think ill of me because it's not the gap between the rich and the poor that matters, its the fact that there are poor people that matters. Our daughter cannot complain she's only relatively poor - she has a roof over her head and is fed. The fact we are wealthy means she is doing OK. Sorted.

Alan, whilst I agree with many of your comments, and they have made me re-visit my opinions, we surely don't live in a purely economic sense - we also live emotionally and ethically. You state "It may be counterintuitive to some but the existence of a super rich makes poor people less poor in absolute terms but poorer in relative terms. I believe that the relative measures are unimportant." I sure is counterintuitive to me. The fact that a country like the UK is relatively wealthy and has strong social structures means that we can turn our attention to solving some of the social and economic inequalities. Being a crazy idealist, I want to live in a society that considers this important.

citizen

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[downsouth]

It's not a system to be played as you frame it. Often times many of these chldren would be wise to follow non-traditonal routes i.e. skilled manual work, entrpreneurship as there is as you say a finite number of good jobs. Certainly beats creating more 'non-jobs'.

[SeanMacGabhann]

"Big if. If that happens then we'll see..."

You're right of course - let's never, ever think ahead and use the collective wisdom of thousands of years of civilisation.. sigh

It is heartening to know that if everyone got their act together then all of those office cleaners and supermarket staff and child-workers in Asia would no longer need to do those jobs because they wouldn't be necessary anymore - by just working a bit harder those jobs become redundant - marvellous

[downsouth]

I don't think that's what anyone's saying. Your are advocating something that has no basis in anything. You can't simply take from others so that you can feel good about yourself. What is it you are seeking to achieve and is that the best way to do it?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Really - I can sometimes waffle on and lose my point. I'll try harder

"Your are advocating something that has no basis in anything"

Bit hard to defend that as I'm not sure what it means

"can't simply take from others so that you can feel good about yourself"

Who is suggesting I feel good about myself, or that's my motivation? One doesn't have to be a devout communist to point out that by spreading money just a little bit more evenly we might have a better world. From a selfish point of view alone, a fairer society means I'm less likely to get burgled/mugged. Consider it insurance

What is it I am seeking?

Utopia most likely. Which is never achievable but we should strive for it and not shrug and say "I'm all right jack"

I envy no-one. I don't mind high salaries at all (why some of my best friends etc etc etc... joke!)

I disagree completely that the gap between poor and rich doesn't matter at all - I would go further and say it is precisely that which defines us.

[Jeremy]

Sean - yes, not everybody can be super wealthy, there are a limited amount of "top" jobs. But people are usually selected for these jobs on merit... a lot of people are simply just not cut out for these jobs, it's a fact of life. I don't really understand your point, I'm afraid!

[Alan Dale]

Removed

[DaveR]

When you start spreading money, there's suddenly less of it to go round!

While there will always be rich and poor, the aim should be to ensure that poverty is never an inevitable situation for any individual/family/race/class/group. The best way of doing that (yet discovered) is a market economy (of which rich people are a by-product)