Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: noodleplugerine on September 20, 2008, 06:43:36 PM
-
So finally, the greedy bar-stewards making million dollar bonusses last month through banks effectively turned into upmarket gambling institutions have finally crumbled.
Finally the idea of "free market capitalism" will die.
I'm cheering for the end of thatcherism and reaganomics, but my friends call me I'm crazy - Anyone else out there who agrees with me?
-
:roll: Perhaps you'd like to emigrate to North Korea?
-
For years now we've had this idea that "the market will look after itself, it knows best" but here we finally have a situation that shows how clueless these people actually are.
It goes beyond that though - The current american government... The most republican government there has EVER been have done THE most socialist thing since Marx and Engels. It's absolutely brilliantly ironic. And I'd imagine and hope that this spells the end of McCain's campaign.
-
Politics is so cute.
-
So finally, the greedy bar-stewards making million dollar bonusses last month through banks effectively turned into upmarket gambling institutions have finally crumbled.
Finally the idea of "free market capitalism" will die.
I'm cheering for the end of thatcherism and reaganomics, but my friends call me I'm crazy - Anyone else out there who agrees with me?
I work in banking.
In Canary Wharf.
I saw people who were very upset, with families to feed and mortgages to pay.
People who don't understand are very quick to criticise. I got so angry at a newspaper headline saying something along the lines of "we shouldn't be smug at all these city types losing their jobs..."
Smug? And the devistation an economic crisis can cause?
The problems in the City at the moment don't hit the traders, they hit the support staff - IT, back office, caterers and cleaners. Not all of these people earn megabucks.
Capitalisism is a method. It's not evil, neither is Communism. It's people that are shitee. Ignorant people, usually.
Mark.
-
And I'd imagine and hope that this spells the end of McCain's campaign.
Not sure I see the logic in that.
Also think you'll be disappointed if you think this is the end of a free market economy.
-
I also know somebody who is being sacked, but I feel that's offset by the fact that the fatcats are finally going to develop some responsibility over the money they handle.
-
I also know somebody who is being sacked, but I feel that's offset by the fact that the fatcats are finally going to develop some responsibility over the money they handle.
If that were the case, I'd be cheering from the rooftops. If I really thought that the people who'd been making money by looking only at the short term, and letting tomorrow go hang had learnt anything, I'd be the happiest Sailor Charon you've ever seen.
But we know who'll get it in the neck, and it won't be the fatcats and the bosses... :(
-
I also know somebody who is being sacked, but I feel that's offset by the fact that the fatcats are finally going to develop some responsibility over the money they handle.
I work in the finance industry and used to work at Lehmans, so I know a lot of people who are affected by this, and I have to say you show a total lack of understanding. The guys who were getting the big bonuses are the brokers and directors, who will still get big bonuses as they are cherry picked by other companies. The normal people will now be looking for a job in a market with less openings (especially if more companies close), and so while they are out of work they will need money. Where do you think that money comes from? Taxpayers. The bail outs in the US will be funded by taxpayers too. If the financial markets had collapsed last week, you would be much worse off because of the trickle down factor. As it is, it will be harder to get a mortgage or car loan, and the interest rates will probably go up because there will be less competition. Once house sales slow down and mortgage rates go up, the price of houses will come down (as is already happening). You will then get the negative equity situation (which is already part of this crisis), where people paid more for their home than its current value. At that point they either have to keep paying and hope that the value comes back, or they walk away from it and leave the bank to foreclose and try to recover some money from their loan. Also people end up spending less and then the economy grinds to a halt. Once that happens, shops start to close and more people are out of work, it is a vicious circle.
Is that what you really think should happen so you are able to put your finger up at someone who has a lot of money and won't be affected by this like the other 10,000 Lehman employess who aren't guaranteed a job from the Barclays takeover? Hank Paulson also wanted to stick his finger up at his old rival Dick Fould, and didn't know enough to see the consequences. If he had given Barclays the $30bn sweetner that they wanted to take over Lehman, then the market might not have gone into a tailspin on Monday, and the big bail out wouldn't have been needed.
And in terms of McCain not getting in, actually in bad economic situations in the States people are more likely to vote for a Republican than a Democrat (especially one without much experience and currently no concrete ideas of how he can 'change' Washington).
-
I also know somebody who is being sacked, but I feel that's offset by the fact that the fatcats are finally going to develop some responsibility over the money they handle.
Well, I'm sure that they will be comforted by your views.
-
I do get where Noodle is coming from. If one looks at it idealistically, then it sort of seems that the greed, and those who caused it, are getting what they deserve.
However, in reality, it seems that the fatcats, directors, chief executives etc always seem to come up smelling of roses with a big pay off. It's not only in an alternative universe that these people effectively get paid loads of money for failing and being cr@p at their jobs. If they fail, then they just get paid a huge sum as a severance payment, to get rid of them, and then move into some other highly paid position.
As has been stated by others, the losers are usually the folks that actually make the "machine" work, rather than those who tell it what to do.
-
I'm just enjoying not being the one with outspoken views for a change.
:)
-
i'm loving the fact that house prices etc. are tumbling, but as everyone's been saying, the dudes getting hardest hit are rarely the dudes who caused the crisis in the first place...
-
Just read this article, you will see that I was right when I said the top guys won't get hurt - they are still guaranteed their bonus even though the company went bankrupt:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/news/regionalnews/execs_crash__earn_130099.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/news/regionalnews/execs_crash__earn_130099.htm)
Still happy Noodle?
-
It's not the death of free market capitalism or the end of anything. The repercussions for many individuals will be terrible, but not for the "fatcats". As for the financial markets themselves, in a couple of years it'll be like nothing ever happened.
-
I am at a loss to see why anyone would take gleeful delight in the current crisis but there you go, each to his own. I am not over excited about losing a few quid off the value of my house but I was not thinking of selling and so it won't have too much affect. Obviously good for buyers except for the fact that mortgages are going to get harder to get. In the end, life will go on. I feel for those losing their jobs- having been in that situation this year after spending 10 years of my life helping to build up a company, I can imagine the sheer misery of losing one's livelihood.
-
I think it sucks, my apprenticeship $%&#ed up, so will find it VERY hard to find another electrician to work with until the next academic year starts.
Farm work is a bit boring, and this years harvest is mighty shitee, so bread and many things coming from natural stuffs will also cost more money :(
-
i disagree, 38th. if the dudes who orchestrated the whole crisis went down, i'd be loving it. most others would too. also, i'm enjoying a bit of schadenfreude too because i was getting a bit sick of hearing, "oh, you'll have to get on the housing market soon or you'll never be able to afford a house"... it's definitely quite gratifying to see those who, in their own small way (and in the case of estate agents, a larger way), were buying into the hype and contributing to the ridiculous housing prices. also, it's quite fun to see those who were pushing up the prices of goods and services by "just putting it on the credit card" (and making those of us who were more disciplined suffer as we weren't willing to borrow) getting their comeuppance by now getting hit by crippling rates of interest.
So, yes, i agree that feeling great about the current situation is a little misguided from the point of view that those who deserve most to lose won't, but i can certainly understand why a lot of people would be pleased (if they didn't know that). and certainly some people who deserve to will be taking at least a little hit. no more short selling, for a start. :twisted:
-
Understood Dave but those who brought it about won't be going down. Plus, there are many who will have bought houses that are now devalued and will be in negative equity. This is not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last but nevertheless a lot of people will have their dreams shattered. I get to thinking that it will be the wrong people paying for this- as always seems to be the case.
-
I get to thinking that it will be the wrong people paying for this- as always seems to be the case.
Ultimately, it'll be taxpayers, as always. And who gets out of paying tax? People on benefits and people rich enough to stick loads of money in offshore tax avoidance schemes.
-
My place is laying off 10% of it's work force and personally there are rumours that there will be more after. As one of the last in the door, then I could really be in the shitee. Still it might be just the catylist that I need to move to Cornwall.
Been looking at buying a house as we have been patiently waiting over the last few years. I have a couple of friends who have bought houses over the last couple of years, and where I told them my views and advised against it, they were always going to do what they thought best. Some of them are stuck in negative equity and some of them have it far worse (one looks like his house is going to be repo'd). I have heard the arguemnt that the negative equity isn't going to affect them as they aren't going to move. Although this is sort of right, they are still stuck with higher mortgage payments.
As for city bankers, I can almost guarentee that the vast majority will be OK. Like it has been said before, it is us mear minnions who will suffer.
-
I get to thinking that it will be the wrong people paying for this- as always seems to be the case.
Ultimately, it'll be taxpayers, as always. And who gets out of paying tax? People on benefits and people rich enough to stick loads of money in offshore tax avoidance schemes.
There's going to be quite a few more people on benefit as a result of all this... :( And they have my deepest sympathy.
-
It's kind of like the windfall tax that they want to put on energy companies fo their profits. Sadly with all shareholder owned companies, if they tax the profits then this shortfall has to be made up somewhere (otherwise the shareholders will leave and everyone will be out of a job), so people will either lose their jobs (which is happening at the minute) or bills will go up again to cover it. Not saying that it's right, it's just how the system works. Capitalism at it's finest :(
-
Quite frankly free market capitalism is not dying but correcting itself from a distortion caused by 10+ years of 'ordinary people' acting imprudently and the banking industry supplying that imprudence - i.e. the millions of pounds worth of debt that has been shifting on paper to far corners of the universe till it won't shift no more. The market works on liquidity - and once that dries up the market contracts. Its the eternal cycle of boom and bust.
All do well in a boom, but many fat cats do very well in a bust - for example I trained as an insolvency lawyer, but the boom made it hard to make a good living, so I changed my practice - now its happy times again for those that stuck to their guns in that field.
-
As most people have already said it's normal people who will suffer not the people behind the irresponsible lending policys that will suffer.
However a lot of people also bear responsibility for their own actions, I have a mortgage @ 4 times my salary and it's a killer. So I really fail to understand how people could borrow 7 times (and I have heard 10 times) their salary and expect to keep ther payments going ?
I also don't understand why people are surprised that the good times would eventually come to an end. Share & house prices cannot keep on rising, some sort of 'correction' had to take place eventually
Having spent near 4 years living in London, while my wife & kids stayed in Belfast (had to work away from home to keep a roof over my familys heads) I definately know what it's like to have too many expenses, as it wasn't unusual to survive on less than £70 per month for food & travel.
So I have been there and I feel bad for those will be suffering and be in a worse situation than I was.
Unfortunitely those who where truely responsible (both for irresponsible lending and encouraging folks to borrow too much) will probably be sitting in their new employers offices and wondering how much their bonuses will be in about 3 months time :(
-
I'm afraid I'm with Elliot on this one (and I seem to have roughly the same taste in pickups :lol:)
I got stung in the last recession in the early 90s (4 years unemployment, divorce, negative equity, etc, etc...) - what goes round comes round.
You're going to get much higher interest rates folks - I was on a fixed 12.5% (which saved us temporarily when it went up to 17.5%, what actually killed us was that we were stuck in one bedroom flat that we couldn't sell, with twins - we drove each other up the wall and what ever bliss should have been turned into a hate-filled nightmare).
Property prices are coming down a lot further as well - because people are going to have to sell for whatever reason, but people like me are not prepared to pay what they've been telling themselves their homes are worth for the last x years. I've been on that end of it - it took me five years to pay off my share of the losses when we finally managed to sell.
Now, what with CSA payments, there's no way me and my new(er) wife (who actually saved my life) have been able to "get back on the ladder". However, as we have no debts, with the way things are going now, our opportunity to put some sort of stability into our housing/future is now looming - I've been telling friends for 5 years that it's on it's way, and here it is coming right at us.
I don't rejoice in other's misfortunes, but I sure as hell rejoice in mine, having funded the other b@stards last time.
I also want to say something about this talk of "fat cats". I'm afraid that I feel that dismissing "them" like that is the "politics of envy", sorry folks.
The price we pay for "freedom" is that some people are going to be far more successful than others.
Some through luck (= they were prepared to take risks that I'm not and it paid off),
some because they were born with the funds (= their ancestors did some hard work),
some because they're snidy-sh1ts who take the credit for what their colleagues do (that happens in all walks of life),
and so on , and so on...
- but ALL had to put some sort of effort in, they don't belittle what I do without knowing what it is I do, so I'm not going to do the same to them.
These "fat cats" don't owe me anything - good luck to them - they're doing the same thing I am, trying to make an honest buck according to whatever the rules of the game are at the time.
If we gave up this freedom - would I be any better off? There'd be a different sort of "fat cat" then (some, but not all, would be the same people) they would have the right to screw me over and take an even bigger slice of the pie - and have me "disappeared" if I objected.
I was determined not to post in this thread... I'm no capitalist, I'm no socialist, I'm not a political animal at all really...
... but here I am, sorry folks :lol:
-
Can I just say, as part of the last bastion of the skilled working class (computer programmers, engineering and technical people) that what I do has been disparaged and belittled since the year dot, both by people who do know what's involved, and those who don't. Regarded as easily replaceable by management, treated as commodities, and regarded about as well as the red shirted guys from Star Trek...
And I object to the term 'Politics of envy' too.
[The only person I envy is Jeremy Clarkson - not because he gets to drive (whatever) but because he gets paid for doing something that he enjoys so much. I don't know of anybody else who's that lucky.]
I couldn't care less what you have, as long as it's not so little that you're struggling. I certainly don't want to take anything away from anyone, and I agree, nobody owes me anything. And vice versa.
However.
In the real world, when people at the bottom mess up, they suffer the consequences - whether it's a pay cut, demotion, redundancy.
If they're higher up, people lower down suffer too.
If they're right at the top, they get off scot free, and possibly get rewarded, while those below them suffer.
You can call criticising that the 'politics of envy' if you like... I call it caring about justice.
-
Can I just say, as part of the last bastion of the skilled working class (computer programmers, engineering and technical people) that what I do has been disparaged and belittled since the year dot, both by people who do know what's involved, and those who don't. Regarded as easily replaceable by management, treated as commodities, and regarded about as well as the red shirted guys from Star Trek...
Serious point....... but the Star Trak comment made me larf, nearly spilt tea on my shirt.
-
Sorry - I knew "politics of envy" was a lazy cliché I ought to have avoided. It's a highly charged one, and I didn't intend to invoke the politics of those who usually use it... but I was in a rush, so, er :oops:.
What's been worrying me in some of the posts I see (not just here, but in the press, etc) is people dismissing, not just criticising, but dismissing all of "them" as baddies somehow responsible for everything that's gone wrong. I don't think they are the baddies, any more than the rest of us are. They're just more high profile and they're the sort of people that the media can point out so that we all know who we're meant to blame...
"Consequences" do go up as well as down. I'm at the bottom, a quite well paid bottom (I'm in IT as well, one of the red-shirted ones :lol:) but no-one works below me. I am a resource/commodity to my management, I accept that, that's the way it works - but I'm a bluddy useful resource and I make sure they know it. Now, if I mess up, here at the bottom, it does have consequences to those above me – up to and including loss of salary, demotion, redundancy. They could suffer these consequences because one of the people whose actions they're responsible for has messed up. Those consequences can go all the way to the top, same as the mess ups at the top can have consequences all the way down. Both the top and the bottom have the power to screw the whole operation up.
However, if I (or anyone else) mess up enough so that I get made redundant, I expect two things for myself:
a) I expect to get paid (assuming the funds are still available) for all my efforts up until now, and to cover my notice period, according to the terms of my contract.
b) I expect to be able to find another job eventually, with remuneration commensurate with the sector I work in, my skills, experience, and how many other idiots like me are looking at the same time, etc.
I don't see how I can possibly require that lower expectations than this are imposed on someone higher up than me. The only problem is that the terms of their contracts are somewhat different than mine, so their severance pay seems extortionately large to me. And they have somewhat different skillsets than I do, one of which is being able to take that kind of pressure and risk. So other companies are prepared to take them on doing the same sort of job, fully aware that "mistakes get made". When it comes down to it, track-record-wise, these guys are successful at what they do, otherwise they wouldn't be kept on, or be able to sign another extortionate contract with a competitor.
That's the way it works - when it comes down to it, it is a roughly level playing field we're all on, unfortunately some people can "run faster" than I can, and some people can't. We can learn to go a bit faster by putting some effort in, etc, but at the moment we're all born with the legs that we're born with.
I decided years ago that I really don't want the system changed so that I'm no longer allowed to run faster than the blokes down the road if I put a bit more effort in. But that means I have to accept the fact that there are far many more blokes up the road who are allowed to run faster than I can ever hope to.
I used to get wound up by this stuff. But one day I realised that me having a hard time about those blokes running faster than me was pretty much down to envy, and that's why I resorted to the cliché earlier.
I've probably managed to say something else now :roll:. Apologies if I have - I really don't want to wind anyone up here. I'm not wound up about it at all, but I obviously feel strongly enough to want to try and get something across. I just wish I could encapsulate it in a "soundbite" that everyone understands, it would have saved me writing all the drivel above!
-
^ what about the dudes who get in at the top because daddy owns the company?
Understood Dave but those who brought it about won't be going down. Plus, there are many who will have bought houses that are now devalued and will be in negative equity. This is not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last but nevertheless a lot of people will have their dreams shattered. I get to thinking that it will be the wrong people paying for this- as always seems to be the case.
oh yeah, of course. the thing was, a lot of people weren't happy with their dreams, and once they got one house, tried to buy 2, etc. etc. also, considering the ridiculous house prices, my dream (ok, not so much a dream, but i'd quite like one) of actually being able to buy a half-decent house was being shat upon, so i don't feel too bad now that i might actually have a chance. they didn't give a shitee about my dream, so i'm not going to feel too bad about theirs going down the cr@pper either.
plus, everyone should know (or at least should be told by the banks) that a variable interest rate means it can go up. the whole point is you shouldn't be mortgaged up to the hilt to the point that even a quarter point rise means you default on that month's payment. that's what caused this mess in the first place, and of course the banks' reckless lending policies; don't get me wrong, i blame the banks and financial sector much more than the ordinary person, but the ordinary person is not blameless either, a lot wanted to be seduced.
+1 on what elliot's saying too (and kilby, that's basically what i was saying).
-
^ what about the dudes who get in at the top because daddy owns the company?
Nearly missed that bit dave :D
Access to capital, sadly is one of the measurements of the "legs" that we are born with.
It was in my first post, or at least I meant it with:
"some because they were born with the funds (= their ancestors did some hard work),"
Might not have been daddy, might have been grand-daddy, whoever. Might even be based on what we now regard as the ill-gotten gains of slavery, piracy, or something else we wouldn't tolerate now.
But most of us expect our stuff to go to our descendants - how can we have one rule for us and not allow the rich to do the same? I don't see why I should get a share in the fruits of someone else's labours just so that their offsrping don't get it. I know it's what causes the great rich-poor divide, but the other answer means that our kids won't get the fruits of our labours either...
The business of "Johnny" getting a seat on the board because he's family - who cares? Any banker/industrialist that puts his idiot son on the throne without "training" him up first (or providing trustworthy support) has probably made a lot worse business decisions than that already :lol:
-
For many of us it isn't the politics of envy (for want of a better phrase)
Many people from all levels in society have over stretched themselves financially (either with mortgages or credit) and we or the most part have to live in the mess that we have made for ourselves.
In the case of what the fatcats (as others have phrased it) are supposed to know what they are doing (and paid accordingly)
However they bought black box mortgage deals, where they bought mortgages off each other but where not allowed to look at the details of what they have purchased (hence the term black box). Christ even I wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.
How about derivitives ? Even the brains in a jar that came up with them admit that they don't understand the implications, yet the banks where blindly dealing in them without having the slightest clue as to what their liabilitys where.
The problem is these guys when they screw up still manage to keep their jobs and pay themselves bonuses. Even when they lose their jobs theyre employed soon afterwards (after huge severence payments) despite that all to often they are actually almost totally ignorant of the sector theyre working in.
If I feck up I expect to pay the price, however certain sections of people are simply promoted out of harms way (or at worst sideways), they never pay the price. On the rare ocasions that they lose their jobs theres always another directorship around the corner (same for our lords and masters in Westminister)
It's like the view (especially in the UK & US) that a manager is a manager and can therefore successfully manage any business despite total ignorance regarding the company (or departments) market or role.
Having worked in dealing rooms, merchant & investment banks for years (Soc Gen, Baring Bros, Swiss Bank, Swiss Re, Lehman Citi Bank et al) I can safely say that my cat probably has a higher IQ.
The Soc Gen dealing floor for example was staffed by the idiot sons of the Parisian bankers and politicians who where trying to avoid military service,
The techies @ Baring Bros paid 300 quid for a null modem lead and a copy of Kermit for transferring files between 2 PCs (their boss thought it was incredible) and I'm not surprised that they went bust.
I think it's just a desire to see justice that is causing many of us to comment, if you work hard and make good (or at least reasionable) decisions nobody (with any sense) would argue about them being paid well.
But if you are doing something wrong (wrong or stupis is still wrong or stupid no matter how hard you work at it.) That should not bring you any sort of reward.
But as usual it dosn't work like that
-
Again Dave I understand but I am not talking of those who buy more than one house_ I just mean the ordinary bloke who buys a house to live in and doesn't even think of it as a means of making money.My preoccupation for years now has been to keep a roof over the head of my family and if I get to leave it to my kids when I snuff it then that is also good ( as I have been paying tax on my earnings I definately do not see why the state should take the results of a lifetime of work and sacrifice- I may just as well as not bothered if that was the system). So my house had increased in value but that is no use to me unless I sell and use the money for funding whatever dream I have. The Missus and I did want to move but that was to a similar sized house in a lovely little village nearby and so there is little to be gained for me-just means I am keeping up.Even now that is not out of the question becuase I am lucky enough to be a homeowner of many years( who incidentally had to cope with a mortgage rate at 15% at one point) and so I will not be as badly hit as those who have bought in the last 2 or 3 years at the inflated prices-not all of them are speculators indeed I would suggest that most of them were simply looking to own the house they live in-nothing wrong with that in my book. The housing market was, as others have said, unsustainable but in time a new balance will be struck and life will go on- some will have learned, some will not. Some will win and some will lose. Now iis probably a good time to buy and I reckon there are speculators out there with the readies rubbing their hands together at the thought of forthcoming repossessions. But if it also means that others get the chance to buy then that is a good thing. I am not going to get all political about it( that should be kept off the forum in my view) but I understand too that these times bring about strong opinions.
-
Mr 38 that's much of how I feel about matters it's the ordinary working person pays for the mistakes
I'm was to say there's 3 guys in my office rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of picking up some cheap property (and considering I was so close to that situation about 4 years ago it quite upsets me)
-
first of all, +1 on kilby's post about 3 posts up. :)
to 38th: i know what you're saying. certainly, i feel sorry for those who just happened to need a house at the height of the boom. however, even people with only one house were often rubbing their hands with glee (not talking about you, obviously) at the "gains" they were making (not quite sure why, when you only have one house, all the other houses are going up in value too, so unless you're going to live in a tent, any gains are strictly on paper only).
I know that at one point it seemed that everyone in our estate (except for us) was rubbing their hands with glee and was planning to move once they saw how much money their house would sell for. these people only had one house.
not to mention, a heck of a lot of people with only one house were buying one house they could ill-afford, and hoping that with the increase in the property market, they could trade up. again, making money from the boom.
as i said, i accept that some people who don't deserve to lose anything will lose. I feel genuinely sorry for those people. just i disagree that there are so few people to blame for the mess. granted some people are more to blame than others, but the house prices weren't rocketing solely because of speculators etc. the fact that once easy credit dried up, the bottom fell out of the market, more or less proves that- a lot of those speculators probably had enough money not to need those loans, or at least would be a safe enough bet to still be able to get credit.
:)
^ what about the dudes who get in at the top because daddy owns the company?
Nearly missed that bit dave :D
Access to capital, sadly is one of the measurements of the "legs" that we are born with.
It was in my first post, or at least I meant it with:
"some because they were born with the funds (= their ancestors did some hard work),"
Might not have been daddy, might have been grand-daddy, whoever. Might even be based on what we now regard as the ill-gotten gains of slavery, piracy, or something else we wouldn't tolerate now.
But most of us expect our stuff to go to our descendants - how can we have one rule for us and not allow the rich to do the same? I don't see why I should get a share in the fruits of someone else's labours just so that their offsrping don't get it. I know it's what causes the great rich-poor divide, but the other answer means that our kids won't get the fruits of our labours either...
The business of "Johnny" getting a seat on the board because he's family - who cares? Any banker/industrialist that puts his idiot son on the throne without "training" him up first (or providing trustworthy support) has probably made a lot worse business decisions than that already :lol:
ah, ok, i didn't realise you meant that. i guess that's fair enough. though i'd say that some jobs pay better than others, whether or not merit is involved... i mean, just as an example, university lecturers are among the best-qualified people in the country, and they get paid a pittance. not to mention, in some jobs you're almost considered evil if you like money (those jobs considered a "calling", or a vocation e.g. teaching, nursing), while in others it's positively encouraged.
Not a major fan of double standards. :(
-
i mean, just as an example, university lecturers are among the best-qualified people in the country, and they get paid a pittance.
That's not necessarily the case - universities (in my experience) are market economies too. For example, when I was at uni in the early '90s, I knew that one of the lecturers, who pulled in a lot of research contracts, was grossing over 100k.
The reverse of that though, when I graduated I ended up working in a tertiary college teaching psychology to A level students for about £3 per hour, on a 16 hour week!
Mark.
-
Well what ever happens the city are predicting income tax hikes of up to 8p in the pound as Alistair Darling says he won't cut on public spending. There were also figures of £1200 a year increases for households. Not very hilarious in my book but having worked with many strange people with twisted ideas on socialism then I don't find these misguided comments that suprising anymore. Those increases equate to Gibson money or most of the other brands. Or even a fantastic holiday like I've just had. My immediate reaction to tax increases of that level is to break the law and work for cash which thousands of others will do given the option. Which will contribute to the ever decreasing cirlcle. The bottom line which has already been pointed out is that, if the top boys mess up we all suffer. The key to surviving these boom bust consequenses is not to stretch yourself to the point, as Dave said that so you won't be in the situation of failing to make your morgtage if the interest rate goes up 1/4 %. Although easier said than done.
-
^ wow, that'd be quite a hike, if true. maybe darling/brown could just get rid of the 20% band to make the tax system "less complicated"... :? :P :x
That's not necessarily the case - universities (in my experience) are market economies too. For example, when I was at uni in the early '90s, I knew that one of the lecturers, who pulled in a lot of research contracts, was grossing over 100k.
The reverse of that though, when I graduated I ended up working in a tertiary college teaching psychology to A level students for about £3 per hour, on a 16 hour week!
Mark.
yeah, i'm sure some earn more than that (and professors etc.), the point is a lot are on barely much more than 20-30k, and that's after about 8 years' intensive university training (including phds, post-doc placements, etc.). not to mention, a lot of the money for those research things are based on what's currently needed by companies, rather than what might be more academically useful- a heck of a lot of our most useful scientific discoveries came about because of accidents etc. it's a dangerous game if you try to predict what scientific advances are needed, as it's virtually impossible to do so.
EDIT: not to mention, there's a hell of a lot more competition than for most other jobs where you need a degree. for most professional jobs, all you need is a 2:1 in a good degree, and you should get a job (assuming decent market conditions lol), while to get a lectureship in a top university, you need a first, a phd, and at least one post-doc placement (if not two), not to mention a "proven track record" in research (i.e. a ton of published papers). all to get a job which quite probably pays less than those other jobs i'm mentioning. at least teachers get decent holidays as a bit of a perk (as they aren't paid enough either, imo).
i guess, i don't agree that money necessarily equals merit, regardless of what the capitalists say. It can do, don't get me wrong, but also luck etc. can play a big part (bigger than most capitalists are willing to admit). i should add that i'm no socialist either, but the argument that "socialism doesn't work because of human nature" can equally be applied to capitalism, if you ask me. :)
EDIT #2 (sorry): i actually caught a good thing on bbc news last night, hard talk, they had norman lamont and a couple of other economists on. much as i'm not a fan of the tories, lamont had a good point (though critics would say he hardly had a great track record as chancellor): he wasn't complaining about the amount of the bonuses, he was complaining about what they were for- instead of being rewarded for managing risk, they were being rewarded for taking risks... for example all those bonuses for signing people up for mortgages, regardless of whether they could pay them back etc....