Abetadad - it isn't like pop stars and footballers, because there are relatively few of them making stratospheric amounts of money. They haven't distorted the cost of living for everyone else to the extent that City workers have.
To those acquainted with salaries in finance, £150k really is very little money. (To me, and nearly everyone else, it is.) This means they spend, habitually, in a way that makes life very very difficult for everyone else (meanwhile having no idea that they are doing so). It is not at all the same as a limited number of ManU and Liverpool footballers in Cheshire having silly money and silly houses in return for being able to kick a ball like nobody else - which overall probably contributes to the local economy as their numbers are probably enough to spread the money around a bit to staff and businesses, but not enough to make it impossible for anyone else to afford a reasonable standard in basic things, eg, somewhere to live.
These discussions are so frustrating because certain current circumstantial facts keep getting cited as laws of nature. Eg, the competitive conditions of entry to certain jobs means that only certain kinds of people get to do them. It doesn't have to be like that! Not everyone who is clever enough to be a trader or an analyst is one. A certain fraction of the number of people who are clever enough actually get the jobs, and those who are most temperamentally aggressive, confident, energetic and determined - because these jobs are very well paid you have to be like a bull in a china shop to fight to get into them. If these jobs were less well paid, they would still require a certain amount of intelligence and analytic nous, but would attract a much more measured personality profile - arguably, to the benefit of the country in terms of less risk taking and more balanced results over time.
Similarly with certain professions - I did not apply to do a post grad law conversion course because the people I would be in competition with for the places, the placements, and ultimately the jobs, intimidated me - I knew them, they were all much more aggressive than me, much more single minded, and honestly better temperamentally equipped to focus their lives 100% on their ambitions. I knew I would be miserable with the lack of sleep, the aggression, the competition, the need to schmooze out of hours, and the lack of private down time. (I also would have had to borrow a lot of money and it seemed very risky.) The people who did succeed in becoming solicitors and barristers all work very hard and people like me who need to go for a walk on sundays and smell the flowers are quite right not to apply. HOWEVER every company I have ever worked for has had a real problem with an overstretched in house legal team: they barely have time to do 80% of their work, despite working long hours and weekends, there is a constant 20% that never gets done, and they are paid what I consider to be fortunes. Why? Why can't we have more lawyers, paid less? Why can't a very clever, thorough, analytic, creatively problem solving person with no taste for stupid late nights be a lawyer doing a good job in a 50 hour week for a decent - not stratospheric - salary? This is how we have chosen to set up the jobs market, not how it has to be.