To not see the problem with bankers bonuses? Politics of envy?

[What1]

This is not a thread about a them read but I just read a comment which inspired me to ask ; why do so many people have a problem with bankers bonuses or the high salaries in the City? I mean, these are private institutions (nnot supported by the public ; except for the odd bank), so I just don't see why people think the salaries will affect them.

The way I see it, if they paid less and didn't give bonuses, then the shareholders would get to keep more to themselves and the general public don't benefit anyway (I may be wrong?)

It's just quite annoying reading all these comments which seem to stem from envy. So I have to ask ; why do you (oor people you know) have a problem with big bonuses and high salaries ; AIBU to not care about their salaries and be annoyed by these politics of envy?

Hang on, some banks have been bailed put by the government, therefore not private, but very socialist imo.
I'm not envious, but disagree in bonuses.

What I have no issue at all with what salary or bonus structure anyone in the private sector has. The Banks balleds up but I don't blame them for the impact the resulting ecconomic crash had on the UK. IMO, I actually think the government at the time as much as they try and distance themselves should bear the majority of that blame. That's why the Conservatives won the election. People don't trust Labour with the country's purse strings.

Private sector financial institutions are there to make money. Profit and growth that's it. Whether or not people like and/or agree with it Banks are not a social enterprise. Unless they are trading fraudulently/criminally these companies and there employees work to the constraints of the regulations in place at any given time. The government at the time didn't have the right controls in place and Gordon Brown so much as admitted it when addressing a conference in Bretton Woods back in 2011/2012ish

So you would have let the banks go to the wall then?

Thing is with "personal responsibility" that actually comes into this debate in a way you don't see. It is the personal responsibility for individuals in businesses not just to take the wages on offer if they are way over inflated as they are in the city. Comparisons with professional footballers are erroneous here as ultimately there are only maybe 1,000 of them worldwide that earn the big money and are capapble of playing at that level. There are many more people employed in the financial services, and believe me, lots of people could do the jobs that get well remunerated.

Its personal responsibility not to do things that risk your firm for your own gain, don't see much of that in the city.

Balleds should be messed. Not sure how I did that..

I love that line 'politics of envy' OP. I love it so much I think it should be more widely used.

You could also throw it at the politicians and media who whip people into a frenzy about public sector workers with 'bully boy unions' and 'cast iron pensions.'

Couldn't you?

Personally I think that bankers' bonuses and public sector pensions are part of your contract of employment and no one has any business interfering once it's been signed.

They can get though. That's just human nature.

"I actually think the government at the time as much as they try and distance themselves should bear the majority of that blame."

So at a time when the conservative's were baying for less controls not more and the city actively campaigning for this you think that more controls could have been implemented?

I love this narrative that is presented by the great unwashed daily mail reading masses, putting it all at the door of the government. Its revisionist in the extreme and is constructed to pander to your prejudices. When it is actually looked it, the banks are responsible for the crash and the austerity that followed to pay for it. As much as they try to use their friends in the media to shape the argument for them.

I wondered when public sector pensions would be mentioned. It is true that they still get a better deal than private pensions, however, in the past that was offset by lower salaries for equivalent levels of responsibility in the private sector. Now both the pensions and the salaries are downgraded - average salary rather than final, increase in contributions and increased age for retirement coupled with a 1% payrise for those at the top of the A4C scales or an increment (for those still working up to the "market" rate for their position).

The bottom line is, Watch, the banks and financial institutions were responsible for the crash. They were also the ones responsible for handing out mortgages and loans to people who couldn't afford them - yes, those people should have taken personal responsibility, but when their banks were showing confidence in them and handing them money, can we really blame them for taking it? The responsibility for lending money MUST rest with the bank.

I also have a beef with other businesses, some of those adored "wealth creators" that we hear so much about who pay their workers the minimum they can get away with, thus making those people dependent on benefits.

They are ONLY creating wealth for a small number of people, not for this country.

As I said upthread, it is the "politics of greed" that is the cause of many of our problems in society - those who have so much and still take more, not the ordinary worker (and I hate the term "hard working families as it smacks of Victorian times and sending kids up chimneys) who is just trying to survive from one pay day to the next.

The issue with inequality of wages is not that the cleaner earns less than the CEO. It would be madness to suggest they ought to earn the same amount. It's what the differential should be that is the question. Should the CEO earn 6x the cleaner, 20x the cleaner, 100x the cleaner? The higher the differential, the worse it is for society.

Not all City workers are bankers. The City has insurance and legal etc firms who all pay good salaries and were not bailed out by the government. Not all people in banking are well paid. Not all well paid bankers were responsiblee for what happened. It was the decision and actions of a few that has tar brushed the many, also mixed up with a good deal of anger at people who evade taxes, which most bankers can't do.

I don't think it's the politics of envy, I think it's just vilifying a group of people and blaming them for everything that goes wrong in society. Just like we do with many other sectors of society, immigrants, people who claim benefits etc.

Hoping the 'politics of envy' is nicely trashed by now?

The quite humorous thing is to hear people banging on about 'unions holding the country to ransom' re any above-inflation wage claim, but then remaining silent when 'bankers' hold the country to ransom with threats of 'we'll leave the country if you reduce our operating model and then you'll all be screwed' if exorbitant fees and bonuses aren't paid to them.

What1, I appreciate that you are trying to keep an open mind here and engage with answers. Re your point about how bankers' salaries could go towards higher shareholders payments, yes, they could - but we could also redistribute so that important people like cleaners get more. There are many options. Also, there are many ways to fund a private financial institution - some of them won't even have shareholders.

I would say bankers have become a target for many things when there are other problems in the system, sure. I am glad that you are interested in learning. I have no problem with people holding particular points of view, I just worry when they don't seem to have all the facts. My dad, for example, does have all the facts and doesn't give two hoots about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. My economic situation is similar to his - apart from insane house prices! - but unlike him, mum and I do worry about it and think it's wrong. But it's important to have some knowledge before making a judgement so I'm glad you stayed on the thread and engaged.

Agree with a lot of points made re wealth creators, corporates etc. Something else that was never addressed - many people said "if a bank's too big to fail, it's too big" - but as far as I can see, no regulation has sorted that out. Risk models and lending models are not regulated that much more since the crash are they? Or are they and I've missed something?

Longtime you incorrectly assume I am a DM reader

So at a time when the conservative's were baying for less controls not more and the city actively campaigning for this you think that more controls could have been implemented

Regardless of the what the Conservatives were baying for or city was campaigning, Labour was in government. Buck stops there! Tony and Gordon don't strike me as weak minded individuals that could be easily manipulated by anyone.

No, I said the narrative was put forth by the daily mail. It has been popularly adopted by most of the press and many commentators, and it is incorrect.

Agreed the goverment could have done more but to make a point like "that's why the conservatives won the election, people don't trust Labour with the purse strings" squarely confirms that you buy into the way the situation has been presented by the mail et al.

The tories wouldn't have done anything different in terms of spending, they pledged to match Labour spending up until 07/08. They campaigned for lighter regulation of the city during this period too. Things would have been worse under their watch.

Things are worse under them since 2010 too.

I'm sure the points been made but the politics of envy also comes into public sector pensions and even bloody benefits, its the reason they have been hammered by the tories. Its almost like a distraction technique. Pay too much attention to what the poor get, what deals public servants get, get too angry about it and you won't notice the elite making off like bandits with the majority of the loot.

Labour didn't get in though, did they. The ended with the worst result since Michael Foot. The public has spoken and they don't trust them. IMO, it's because of the ecconomy.

With regards the 'what if, even if, should they have been in government' in relation to the Conservative. They weren't in government, other than assumptions there is no way of ever knowing what the Conservatives or any other party would have done had they been in power. We do however know what Labour did. Buck stops there!

The tories wouldn't have done anything different in terms of spending, they pledged to match Labour spending up until 07/08. They campaigned for lighter regulation of the city during this period too. Things would have been worse under their watch.

a point the Labour leadership failed repeatedly to make in the GE run up, in stead banged on about non dom and mansion tax. Spent way too many times shouting at the screen to Ed et al when the opportunity arose to make all of this clear.

VivienScott i agree with your post a thousand times.

Butterfly ofcourse - thats why i started the thread, to learn more. How would you redistribute this to the cleaner though? The way i see it - it can only go up.

PrettyinPink I think people , on the whole, are silent because they (most people outside of MN) realise its true - we would be screwed if the 'bankers'(general term) up and left us. the truth is; our economy needs them. No point saying they can be replaced because those new people will just leave too when they realise they can have it better elsewhere.

People never actually leave when they say they will (although Katie Hopkins shouldn't linger too long). Its a threat, and an empty one. There is a reason London is a financial powerhouse and its not all down to the "talent" that is here. Much of it is historic, geographic, political, down to the intertwined nature of our business with both the US and London. The top echelons of the finance world can talk of going to Switzerland or somewhere else but they won't because they fear that the larger reasons will keep the business here and not where they go. Empty threats. The biggest one to worry about is how many firms will leave if we leave the EU, our political and geographic proximity do us many favours there.

Oh and the financial services impact on the economy is overplayed too, the much maligned manufacturing sector still contributes a larger percentage of GDP

Capitalism, good for a few but bad for many.

Just found this in the business section of the Graun ( and yes i know there is bias there too) but this is relatively true of a good chunk of the banking sector based in London.

"Extra-curricular activities
If you are the type who employs a City broker, and have sometimes wondered exactly how hard they’re grafting on your behalf for those chunky fees, here’s a fun game to play.

Give them a call to see if they’re in the office this week. Repeat the exercise on 5 June, any time between 16 and 20 June, then again for a couple of weeks from the end of June. The chances are you might keep missing your broker, who will be extremely busy having meetings with other clients, none of whom could make it into the City.

In case you’re curious, those meetings will probably be taking place this week at the Chelsea Flower Show, the Lord’s Test match and (possibly) Wentworth, where the PGA golf is teeing off. Your broker will then be dragged over to Epsom for the Investec Oaks on 5 June, followed by Royal Ascot (16-20 June) and Wimbledon (29 June-12 July) – which should have ensured that everybody is in peak bubbly-quaffing form to return to St John’s Wood for more crucial negotiations, which will need to take place during the Ashes Test in the middle of July.

Life is grand, isn’t it?"

THIS is why people get angry.

nornironrock Anyone who says they wouldn't take it, is a liar.

I think this says more about you, than anyone else TBH.

I can't abide these baseless assertions. Not everyone is greedy. eg. people work for charities, in nursing, teaching, etc. and are clearly NOT motivated by the size of their pay packets, but by a love for what they do and a respect for their fellow members of society.

As many have pointed out, several CEOs of banks have been happy to take massive bonuses even when they've presided over a shambolic mess. That smacks of entitlement and lack of moral backbone.

I think people , on the whole, are silent because they (most people outside of MN) realise its true - we would be screwed if the 'bankers'(general term) up and left us. the truth is; our economy needs them. No point saying they can be replaced because those new people will just leave too when they realise they can have it better elsewhere.

Again, OP, you are assuming everyone is motivated by sheer greed. A good friend of mine is UK head of a major global corporation. He has consistently refused to go abroad because his elderly, frail parents are here. I'm willing to believe he's a rare case, but the argument that our economy needs greedy bastards who will run away as soon as they get a sniff of extra money abroad is overly simplistic. I'd be happy to see those kinds of people leave but would put money on the fact that the majority wouldn't.

Before things got so wildly out of hand with bonuses, the UK still managed to employ bankers and corporate CEOs and managed to be a major financial centre.

It makes me laugh when the likes of Russell Brand and other extremely rich celebrities bang on about bankers bonuses. Er.... are you too not paid disproportionately large sums due to the way the market in which you work has been structured to reward "the best" people.

(This is leaving aside the notion of bonuses paid to banks that the public has bailed out - which is unsupportable - but the vast majority of bankers don't work for those banks).

There are lots of jobs that are paid a lot more than other jobs. Such is the nature of capitalism.

Besides, not all bankers were involved and so why should all bankers be punished
I have been "punished" through public sector cuts and I sure as fuck wasn't involved.

What1 - you ask "How would you redistribute this to the cleaner though? The way i see it - it can only go up."

Why do you think it can only go up? What is stopping anyone from paying a higher wage to any essential staff e.g. cleaners, administrators, any number of people. I realise that in reality, they will say "those skills are ten a penny" but nothing forces them to take that attitude. They could choose to allocate money differently. You might be interested in this story

uk.businessinsider.com/ceo-dramatically-raised-minimum-wage-at-his-company-2015-4