How many of the people who compain about bankers bonuses could do the job themselves?

davidgmmafan

EdgEy wrote: »

Not everyone wants that from their lives though.
Put it this way, Bob Diamond could retire now and live the rest of his life in absolute bliss flying around the world doing near enough whatever he likes.

It's all about compromise, and some would rather work their !!!!!! off in early life to reap the rewards. Or maybe they truly are workaholics and like to work hard?

Not everyone wants that fair enough. I really don't think most people setout thinking yes I WANT a job where I work literally everyday long hours andthus have no time to spend the vast amounts ofmoney I'm making. Its a gradual thing. They have ambition and drive, or greed depending on your perspective, and as they work their way up they 'consent' to restrictions on their time.

The reason why I picked up on the seven day example given is some people might admire that person, some people might think they're mad. But having got to that level, accepting the incremental increases in stress and the demands on thier time, they can'tsayactually I don't fancy working Sundays now.

The example you give in this most recent post is also interesting. Why ARE people like that still working when they have more money than they know what to do with? Maybe they are a tiny bit mad?

N1AK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

None.

It's the politics of envy, plain and simple.

As much as it feels strange to be of the same opinion, I completely agree. Everytime some uninformed fool starts whinging about bankers it's all I can do to avoid telling them to put up (do it better themselves) or shut up.

N1AK

Bonia77 wrote: »

You seem to have a view that being a banker require an IQ of at least 150 :cool:

Really I think there are quite a few people that could do their job

You seem to think that IQ is a measure of ability, and that being informed is purely optional when offering worthwhile opinion. If you had any idea of what being a 'banker' entailed and how many people fitted that role you'd be able to offer a better case than that.

I know a couple of investors with major banks. It's difficult work and requires ability, focus and determination. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do their job, even though I have very strong mathematical and statistical ability.

If lots of people could do the job very well then they wouldn't be paid so much.

Pete111

N1AK wrote: »

You seem to think that IQ is a measure of ability, and that being informed is purely optional when offering worthwhile opinion. If you had any idea of what being a 'banker' entailed and how many people fitted that role you'd be able to offer a better case than that.

I know a couple of investors with major banks. It's difficult work and requires ability, focus and determination. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do their job, even though I have very strong mathematical and statistical ability.

If lots of people could do the job very well then they wouldn't be paid so much.[/QUOTE]


Very true.

MY OH used to work in HR for an investment bank. As an example their recruiters would target the cream of the Oxbridge maths bods for their (very highly paid) stats/forecasting/modelling roles. Guys with brains the size of planets basically.

[Deleted User]

Generali wrote: »

I think the only sector of business with more accountability than banking/finance is pharma.

The level of scrutiny is pretty intense, the number of rules, regulations and laws amazing as is the sheer number of bodies scrutinising you.

Some banks went bust. Big deal. Companies go bust all the time, that's capitalism. The mistake is the Government taking on the entirety of the liabilities of the banking sector onto their books.

There is a lot of checking of compliance however the individuals responsible for the failure of the banks have not been held responsible for that. How many have handed bonuses back when the problems manifest themselves? How many kept their jobs?

Companies do go bust and that is no big deal unless they don't go bust because they have to be propped up by the tax payer. Then it isn't capitalism there is no survival of the fittest just the most bloated.

Blacksheep1979

spadoosh wrote: »

Just to prove a point....

P/T 16 hours @ £6.15p/h = £98.40


Average sales i process during said 16 hours, £15-20k

15000 * 0.1% = £150 = £9.37 p/h

I think you've just proven on at least two points why you couldn't do their job -

1. 0.1% of 15000 is £15 not £150, so is under £1/hour
2. That's not what you make the company as you say here:

spadoosh wrote: »

I work for b&q and could very comfortably live off .1% of what i make for them. in fact it would hammer my £6.15 hourly rate!

that is turnover, not profit.

If your £6.15/hour wage (so 12-13k full time salary) was scaled to be 0.1% of what you earn for the company you'd be making them £12-13 million a year.

They made £195m in 2009, with a touch under 23000 staff that's averaging 8k per staff member (this is obviously after staffing costs) so really if you want 0.1% or even 10% of what you make the company (after costs) you're going to be seriously down.

the.ciscokid

ILW wrote: »

Seems to be very "in" to slag off bankers for their bonuses, but I do wonder how many of the people who complain the loudest could actually pick up the phone, arrange a meeting this week and persuade someone to give them a few million to play with.

I am pretty sure most people could have a fair crack at recklessly gambling billions of quid away, and destroying the economy.

Granted some would have a mild moral objection to it, so it probably isn't for everyone.

inspector_monkfish

purch wrote: »

Do you think that is what they do ?

How quaint :eek:

its what i do!! lol

(well, partly)

ILW

the.ciscokid wrote: »

I am pretty sure most people could have a fair crack at recklessly gambling billions of quid away, and destroying the economy.

Granted some would have a mild moral objection to it, so it probably isn't for everyone.

Bear in mind that for every trade there is normally a winner and a loser. Which do you think you would be?

kabayiri

ILW wrote: »

Bear in mind that for every trade there is normally a winner and a loser. Which do you think you would be?

What rubbish.

So if I'm a surgeon and I 'win' when performing an operation, the patient 'loses'?

Get a grip.