Reply to: Question Time last night

[d000hg]

Yeah I've noticed that too. I really think that some people on here are flattering themselves way too much if they think they are in the same category as the overpaid undeserving bankers. I don't know about agents - maybe if you own a recruitment firm (employing several staff, not just a one-man band operating out of his livingroom), then maybe you are in that league, but I do know that the vast majority of IT contractors earn less than 150K per year, so they are not even paying the highest rate of tax (except maybe if they are within IR35).

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but I never compared contractors and big business bosses in terms of salary. I compared them in the sense that in the public's eyes, both are paid a lot for what they do. Earning £150k for "being a programmer" is not something that the majority would endorse, and I imagine most here would feel uncomfortable revealing their earnings to those in regular £30k jobs... hence the way we invariably add the "no holidays, etc" clause in if we have to talk about it.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Before I go down this one, I personally fully endorse the model that IT contractors are paid

If you bothered to read what I said you will find that I agree with you (even the bit about agents). I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of mr Peoplesoft

Every time I post anything suggesting however gently suggesting that maybe we should have a think about whether the current setup has made us the slaves or the masters you trot out the same tired arguments about champagne socialism and hypocrisy, envy etc. I am reminded of some of Billy Connolly's mates who apparentrly used to have a go at him for socialising with rich people. You don't seem to accept that opinions can exist out of context - in the same way Billy's mates thought he had sold out because he had some rich pals. I pity that dogmatic limiting of horizons, whoever it comes from.

[doodab]

Do you think reducing the pay of executives is going to help the economy? Of course it isn't.

Actually it seems that reducing the gap between the haves and have nots in the right way might actually help the economy.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...11/sdn1108.pdf

This note focuses on the duration of growth spells—defined as the interval starting with a growth upbreak and ending with a downbreak—and on the links between duration and various policies and country characteristics, including income distribution. It turns out that many of even the poorest countries have succeeded in initiating growth at high rates for a few years. What is rarer—and what separates growth miracles from laggards—is the ability to sustain growth. The question then becomes: what determines the length of growth spells, and what is the role of income inequality in duration?
We find that longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution. For example, closing, say, half the inequality gap between Latin America and emerging Asia would, according to our central estimates, more than double the expected duration of a growth spell. Inequality typically changes only slowly, but a number of countries in our sample have experienced improvements in income distribution of this magnitude in the course of a growth spell. Inequality still matters, moreover, even when other determinants of growth duration—external shocks, initial income, institutional quality, openness to trade, and macroeconomic stability—are taken into account.

That isn't some lefty think tank speaking BTW, it's the IMF.

[Jeff Maginty]

..

[Doggy Styles]

Rich B*stard

Not one of yours, obviously!

[DodgyAgent]

Agreed. We're on shaky ground kicking up a fuss about bankers when the public would put us in the same boat as them... especially those of us on £500+/day AT the banks.

Rich B*stard

[d000hg]

Reading it I would imagine that some of the first in line to fall foul with this argument (sorry diatribe of entitlement) would be IT contractors

Agreed. We're on shaky ground kicking up a fuss about bankers when the public would put us in the same boat as them... especially those of us on £500+/day AT the banks.

[darmstadt]

It's amazing enough that people put up with bankers & chief-execs getting paid millions for their "work" in the so-called "boom years" (that were really just a false illusion), but I just can't understand how the general public appear to have rolled-over and accepted the continuing rewards-for-failure paid to bankers out of taxpayers money.

Probably because 90% of the general public are ******* numpties who couldn't wipe their own arse if they weren't shown how.

[DodgyAgent]

and I would argue otherwise.

As I said and I think you agree that what you earn is dependant on how many others can do it and then on how much wealth it generates.

When a CEO turns a business around then he is worth the difference, but we seem to have a generation of fat cats who think that because the last guy earned 1 mill so should they. They also seem to feel they are entitled to golden handshakes even though they have presided over a disaster.

I also agree with the earlier poster that bankers profits in earlier years are somewhat of an illusion.

I am not arguing it from your or my point of view. However what effing difference is it going to make for a few highly paid CEOs to be made more accountable for their performances? They along with bankers pay are a red herring with regards to what is wrong with this country. Apart from anything else your comments on exec pay are sweeping anecdotes picked out of the press. Either we have a table that judges "worth" in what people do for everyone or not at all. And I am afraid that in the context of valuing what people do then contractors will come under more serious scrutiny than any other type of job.

[SimonMac]

However I can't understand why people like Fred Goodwin aren't in prison for almost causing financial collapse, his income was high because he was responsible for a large bank, so he should be made to take responsibility of the problems his bank has caused.

Because stupidity isn't against the law, if it was you'd be in prison along with all the other sockies on here!

[Arturo Bassick]

The point is, nobody is really worth what they get paid. A local authority chief exec on £150,000 per year is not worth 5 times as much to society as a senior nurse on £30,000 per year, and a banker on £1,500,000 per year is not worth 10 times as much to society as a local authority chief exec. The way that the market values people is badly out-of-synch with the actual value they create. This is because we've allowed the system to get badly distorted. What's needed is for a comprehensive review of our whole value-system as a society and a re-aligning of the rules of law/economy/policy to reinforce and encourage whatever we work out to be our values. Of course, this is extremely unlikely to happen because there are very powerful vested interests who will do all they can to ensure that nothing upsets their cosy position at the top of the pile where they keep grabbing all the wealth for themselves regardless of the negative effect that has on the majority of people.

It's amazing enough that people put up with bankers & chief-execs getting paid millions for their "work" in the so-called "boom years" (that were really just a false illusion), but I just can't understand how the general public appear to have rolled-over and accepted the continuing rewards-for-failure paid to bankers out of taxpayers money.


It was one of you lot that said this not one of us. Reading it I would imagine that some of the first in line to fall foul with this argument (sorry diatribe of entitlement) would be IT contractors

and I would argue otherwise.

As I said and I think you agree that what you earn is dependant on how many others can do it and then on how much wealth it generates.

When a CEO turns a business around then he is worth the difference, but we seem to have a generation of fat cats who think that because the last guy earned 1 mill so should they. They also seem to feel they are entitled to golden handshakes even though they have presided over a disaster.

I also agree with the earlier poster that bankers profits in earlier years are somewhat of an illusion.

[DodgyAgent]

The problem with concentrating too much wealth in the hands of the few is that it reduces the velocity of money.

I wish there was a better way to correct this than depression.

Which is what the debate should be about. The fact is that the whole debate is a front line of argument between the right and the left instead of being any practical discussion about what in my view is a very real problem.

[DodgyAgent]

I did read it, I even provided an example of what I thought you agreed with.
I just took issue with your "could be argued". I do not see how you could argue that what I/we do is somehow not valuable.

The point is, nobody is really worth what they get paid. A local authority chief exec on £150,000 per year is not worth 5 times as much to society as a senior nurse on £30,000 per year, and a banker on £1,500,000 per year is not worth 10 times as much to society as a local authority chief exec. The way that the market values people is badly out-of-synch with the actual value they create. This is because we've allowed the system to get badly distorted. What's needed is for a comprehensive review of our whole value-system as a society and a re-aligning of the rules of law/economy/policy to reinforce and encourage whatever we work out to be our values. Of course, this is extremely unlikely to happen because there are very powerful vested interests who will do all they can to ensure that nothing upsets their cosy position at the top of the pile where they keep grabbing all the wealth for themselves regardless of the negative effect that has on the majority of people.

It's amazing enough that people put up with bankers & chief-execs getting paid millions for their "work" in the so-called "boom years" (that were really just a false illusion), but I just can't understand how the general public appear to have rolled-over and accepted the continuing rewards-for-failure paid to bankers out of taxpayers money.


It was one of you lot that said this not one of us. Reading it I would imagine that some of the first in line to fall foul with this argument (sorry diatribe of entitlement) would be IT contractors

[BrilloPad]

Not really true - income distribution is far wider than it was in the 1950s. We're back at a peak of income distribution skew that hasn't been seen since the late 1920s. Remember what happened after that?

The problem with concentrating too much wealth in the hands of the few is that it reduces the velocity of money.

I wish there was a better way to correct this than depression.

[Arturo Bassick]

Before I go down this one, I personally fully endorse the model that IT contractors are paid

If you bothered to read what I said you will find that I agree with you. nI was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of mr Peoplesoft

I did read it, I even provided an example of what I thought you agreed with.
I just took issue with your "could be argued". I do not see how you could argue that what I/we do is somehow not valuable.