to not understand capitalism

[IceBeing]

Some people work hard (say 60 hours a week all year) and get paid about £20000 a year...and some people work hard and get paid 10 or even 100 times as much a year.

How can 60 hours a week of work from 1 person be worth 100 times as much as 60 hours a week of work from another person?

I am talking about bank charges not interest rates.

oh sorry I didn't realise it was you cote, please consider this interaction terminated as I have no interest in talking to you on any subject.

YABU to think the value of a job depends on hard work. The value of something is not what it costs or how important it is but what it's worth. It's worth a publisher advancing a few million to J K Rowling for her next book because they'll make a few more million in profit when it sells. It's worth a movie company paying George Clooney several million for taking a part in a film because the box-office receipts from Clooney fans will be a hundred times that. It's worth a corporation paying a CEO a few million for being the CEO when their successful management results in expansion, keeping hundreds of others in employment and very large profits.

"we actually need milk while we don't need bank middlemen"

You do need bank personnel because you need banks. You don't know you need banks, because you don't understand the important role that banks have played (and still play) in the growth of UK economy from the scale of a banana republic to the world player it is now.

Feel free not to reply to my posts if that is your wish, but you can't stop me from pointing out the errors in yours. Such is the beauty of MN

cog but is it worth paying a ceo that? I mean do you actually know that you are getting a better job done than if you didn't?

Is it worth paying massive bonuses to banks that are performing below average?

I get paying clooney though...because you actually get something back - something that is more than if you paid less to someone not so famous. His USP actually makes it worth while. It is far FAR less obvious that you get what you pay for in banking or management.

Just curious, is there a defined point at which people who work for financial institutions become awful and not worthy of communication -or is it just all of us?

You don't get better returns from a hedge fund if you pay more service charges...and in fact you would do better to stuff your banknotes in a microwave than pay any of them...but somehow people haven't noticed this...I guess they think they are just being unlucky...and haven't realised yet that the average joe public punter looses on the stock market...and in fact that the whole thing is like a massively less fun casino. Only the house wins....only on the stock market sometimes not EVEN the house wins...

No just cote. Unfortunately I am not blessed with the ability to forget things that people have posted on other threads.

The system is screwed up...it isn't necessarily the fault of the people in it...although they are all enablers...

ITs like cosmetic surgery really. You aren't awful if you follow the herd and buy into the idea that surgery can bring you happiness and have a boob job or whatever...even though the industry as a whole is horribly damaging to young women in general..... its just it might be nice if more people could be arsed to stand against such things...to put out the opposite message - that your value isn't in your appearance...

Tbh I think classing folk as enablers of some evil system is pretty rude. I do not deny that elements of banking got way out of hand but the way people in fs are discussed is bloody disgusting.

"No just Cote"

Erm... I don't work for a financial institution

Please post here what I have previously said to cause you such grief that we can all see how true awful it was.

Ice
You are being so deliberately obtuse to all the reasoned explanations you are getting to your questions that this is turning into something akin to trying to reason with a toddler.
Clearly you have a huge axe to grind with executive pay for CEOs and people working in investment banks, despite constantly demonstrating you have a zero working knowledge of what either of those worlds really do.

It is either baffling or laughable that you think a footballers' skills can be objectively measured, that advertising campaigns with frontmen have very clear measurable ROI, but no one can accurately measure the value add of a CEO. And bankers bonuses don't reward failing banks. They reward performing bankers, and are worked out on an individual basis. A bit like commission for a car salesman but on a bigger scale.

But given that you think all consumerism is inherently evil, I imagine you think we should all be driving identical unbadged utilitarian vehicles, made in National Factory No 6, and thus there is no need for car salesmen to be on anything other than the same wage as the people on the checkouts in the supermarket.

Also, please can you explain what you think a hedge fund is and what it does...

"cog but is it worth paying a ceo that? "

It is worth it to the organisation or they wouldn't offer the money. I don't think someone who can kick a football very hard is particularly worth thousands of pounds a week but, because they can kick the football, lots of people (not me) will pay to watch and therefore their salary is justified.

Regarding bonuses. My job contractually earns me a bonus if I hit targets set by the business. If the business as a whole isn't doing so well I still expect to receive the contracted amount. Bank workers presumably have similar contracts.

oh yes..spare I dream of life in a grey uniform - you have it exactly...

cog I am not sure...you have to try paying much less before you would find out right?

no one is willing to risk that....

you have a problem with the old human condition of 'well we paid the ceo tonnes and s/he did a good job...so we have to keep paying that much'

the same logic that leads to praying the sun will rise because you did it yesterday and it worked....and OMG its not worth not praying coz what if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow!

A lot of SMEs start out paying the boss a living wage if that. Then they grow and grow and are successful...so is the boss suddenly going to stop doing a good job unless you multiply the pay by 100?

"in fact you would do better to stuff your banknotes in a microwave than pay any of them...but somehow people haven't noticed this"

I have quite a lot of money invested in a managed fund. The fund manager is required to invest their own money in the fund so if they get it wrong, they lose as well as me. Even allowing for the 2008 crash I've averaged 8% growth in value. If you want the equivalent of stuffing banknotes into a microwave, buy Premium Bonds. :)

I agree, it is a rubbish system. No wonder so many are depressed. Not sure what alternative would be better though.

"cog I am not sure...you have to try paying much less before you would find out right?"

Not at all. If someone's employment contract says that they receive a bonus based on certain criteria then it has to be honoured.

"Look at commodity trading and the impact that has on global food and commodity prices. Speculating on whether the price will go up or go down - or is it gambling."

Food prices are not necessarily rising because of commodity trading. The rise of the Chinese and other emerging economies means billions more people with the wealth to consume imported foods and other products that we take for granted. There is a global shortage of food, not an excess of trading.

cog huh? I meant if you wanted to know if pay made a difference to CEO performance you would have to try paying CEO's less and see what happens....

people are assuming that you have to pay massive wages to get good people but what if that simply isn't true? What if there are people who want to manage companies and would be good at and wouldn't require 7 digit salaries to do the job?

Kim yes that sounds like the thing I heard...that on average these massive fund managers aren't out performing the market....

my extrapolation to them not outperforming the microwave is somewhat childish...but if most people are actually losing money on the stock market I can't see how it is particularly wrong?