Liz Truss - the first 100 days....

[Rusty Nails]

Your measure then, as proposed above, is that they get paid 'enough'.

If you work in a bank, live alone in a one-bedroom flat with a small cat and have a gym membership at your local gym, mostly ride a Ribble bike on the cycle scheme and have a small car for trips at the weekend, mostly shop in Lidl and Aldi and a Netflix account then £34,000 will probably be enough to leave you £50 to put in your savings at the end of the month.

If you work in the banks Head Office, have a flat in London, a house in Cornwall, a flat in Les Arcs, 2 children at public schools, you and your wife belong to a very swanky gym in London, you are in 3 golf clubs and have a choice between one of the three Pinarellos, the Range Rover, Volvo estate or the Ducati to get to work, eat out 4 times a week and have dinner cooked by the nanny who has access to your Ocado delivery account on the other nights when you aren't out at the theatre, then £2.3m may actually be a bit tight. Leaving you with £25 to put in your savings at the end of the month.

So using your logic, person 2 should get the pay rise.

Using the generic term 'bankers' creates a monster figure that people can rail against, in reality this person does not exist. In reality the 'banker' is lots of professions that earn what you perceive to be excessive money. I can remember when the legal aid argument was in full swing we were being told that greedy rich barristers were fleecing the public purse for £m's and it had to be clamped down on. Now it appears that they are the poor downtrodden barristers who, because they are going on strike, seem to be enjoying support from people who called them money grabbing leaches a short while ago.

A nice comparison, except that it is absolute rubbish. Your first person has little choice or flexibility in their expenditure to survive to an acceptable level, and just about all the additional items of expenditure for your second person are luxury items that they choose to spend to increase their perceived quality of life.

I do not use the term bankers to include any person earning a lot of money.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

A nice comparison, except that it is absolute rubbish. Your first person has little choice or flexibility in their expenditure to survive to an acceptable level, and just about all the additional items of expenditure for your second person are luxury items that they choose to spend to increase their perceived quality of life.

I do not use the term bankers to include any person earning a lot of money.

I understand that, but @Adam4868 is asking us if they 'have enough'. Well I reckon that no-one on this forum 'has enough' money, we would all like more. The person in scenario A would like more money, the person in scenario B would like more money.

We would all like more money. It is too simplistic to simply say do they have enough as someone then decides where the line gets drawn. I don't fancy doing that, do you?

 

[Deleted member 49]

Your measure then, as proposed above, is that they get paid 'enough'.

If you work in a bank, live alone in a one-bedroom flat with a small cat and have a gym membership at your local gym, mostly ride a Ribble bike on the cycle scheme and have a small car for trips at the weekend, mostly shop in Lidl and Aldi and a Netflix account then £34,000 will probably be enough to leave you £50 to put in your savings at the end of the month.

If you work in the banks Head Office, have a flat in London, a house in Cornwall, a flat in Les Arcs, 2 children at public schools, you and your wife belong to a very swanky gym in London, you are in 3 golf clubs and have a choice between one of the three Pinarellos, the Range Rover, Volvo estate or the Ducati to get to work, eat out 4 times a week and have dinner cooked by the nanny who has access to your Ocado delivery account on the other nights when you aren't out at the theatre, then £2.3m may actually be a bit tight. Leaving you with £25 to put in your savings at the end of the month.

So using your logic, person 2 should get the pay rise.

Using the generic term 'bankers' creates a monster figure that people can rail against, in reality this person does not exist. In reality the 'banker' is lots of professions that earn what you perceive to be excessive money. I can remember when the legal aid argument was in full swing we were being told that greedy rich barristers were fleecing the public purse for £m's and it had to be clamped down on. Now it appears that they are the poor downtrodden barristers who, because they are going on strike, seem to be enjoying support from people who called them money grabbing leaches a short while ago.

No I asked "are they not paid enough" How about your logic that we can't afford a 15 pound a hour minimum wage,or maybe we could clap for them instead ?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Using the generic term 'bankers' creates a monster figure that people can rail against, in reality this person does not exist. In reality the 'banker' is lots of professions that earn what you perceive to be excessive money. I can remember when the legal aid argument was in full swing we were being told that greedy rich barristers were fleecing the public purse for £m's and it had to be clamped down on. Now it appears that they are the poor downtrodden barristers who, because they are going on strike, seem to be enjoying support from people who called them money grabbing leaches a short while ago.

The term 'bankers', used in the current context of bonuses in excess of salary, is well understood by those using it, as I explained upthread.

The so called legal aid fat cats were a handful of folks at the top of their profession doing ultra high profile cases. The system by which they are (were?) paid led to them receiving a fee for years of work on long and complex cases in one lump sum. Neither the nature of the transaction nor the fact it was gross, before the expenses of running their chambers - probably as much as 60% of the gross fee - was ever spelled out.

Oddly, there was never a fuss about prosecution fat cats...

The striking barristers are at the opposite end of their careers doing lower lever thuggery and muggery together with early stages of more serious offending. Like their seniors they have to pay away a very large chunk of their self employed earnings to defray expenses of their offices, support staff etc.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I understand that, but @Adam4868 is asking us if they 'have enough'. Well I reckon that no-one on this forum 'has enough' money, we would all like more. The person in scenario A would like more money, the person in scenario B would like more money.

We would all like more money. It is too simplistic to simply say do they have enough as someone then decides where the line gets drawn. I don't fancy doing that, do you?

There is a difference between like and need.

Everyone needs one home to live in, people may like, but not need, three homes, plus three cars, three golf clubs etc.

Specious comparisons to make a point are not helpful.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

The striking barristers are at the opposite end of their careers doing lower lever thuggery and muggery together with early stages of more serious offending.

Which is exactly the point of stupid catchy slogans.

'Bankers Bonuses' works very well, but should really be 'Excessively Large Remuneration Packages For A Handful Of Quite Skilled Risk Takers' as the huge majority of people who work in banking won't get that money, but we are led to believe that all bankers are.

As with the barristers, my guess is that if you asked Joe Public a couple of years ago they would not have known who was getting the cash and who wasn't, there was just a group of people called barristers who wore silly wigs and got all the public cash for reading a brief over breakfast, or got themselves on to an enquiry and spent 14 years raking it in. So the same with 'bankers'.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

No I asked "are they not paid enough" How about your logic that we can't afford a 15 pound a hour minimum wage,or maybe we could clap for them instead ?

And maybe the person in my scenario number 2 would say, actually no, he isn't paid enough.

 

[icowden]

The striking barristers are at the opposite end of their careers doing lower lever thuggery and muggery together with early stages of more serious offending. Like their seniors they have to pay away a very large chunk of their self employed earnings to defray expenses of their offices, support staff etc.

Actually that isn't quite accurate. It's not about what stage of your career, but about which area of law.
If you work in commercial law, or libel cases for example, you are quids in.

If you are a criminal barrister (the only ones who still wear the wigs and gowns) then the only area paying vaguely well is in private representation - usually representing wealthy people in court. For the vast majority both poor and middle class, Legal Aid is needed. The Government set fixed rates for Legal Aid defence which have not been uplifted and which do not tend to include travel or preparation time. Add to that the high volume of cases and the number which have to be cancelled and you have real problems.

If you want a really good overview of how our criminal justice system is crumbling @BarristerSecret is the account to follow (and she has some excellent books also).


View: https://twitter.com/LeonNathanLynch/status/1567521496808972289

 

[theclaud]

Guys. He knows what 'bankers' means.

 

[Deleted member 49]

And maybe the person in my scenario number 2 would say, actually no, he isn't paid enough.

Come up with something better Craig.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Guys. He knows what 'bankers' means.

Well, my definition would be people who work for banks. I think we walk a difficult path if we put everyone who earns decent money in financial services in the 'bankers' pot and make them the duty bogey men.

We also have the 'energy companies' in the frame at the moment, if you ask people who they are you will be told, most likely, whoever the persons energy supplier is. Octopus energy etc make very little money, but they are seen as an 'energy company'. Shell, BP, Gazprom etc are making the money, not the individual suppliers.

It may be understandable shorthand for you clever people on here, but not everyone will get the nuance in the way you all seem to do, and people who work in banks will quickly become bankers. Oh, and if you don't believe me that some people don't get difference and nuance......

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

 

[Rusty Nails]

Which is exactly the point of stupid catchy slogans.

'Bankers Bonuses' works very well, but should really be 'Excessively Large Remuneration Packages For A Handful Of Quite Skilled Risk Takers' as the huge majority of people who work in banking won't get that money, but we are led to believe that all bankers are.

As with the barristers, my guess is that if you asked Joe Public a couple of years ago they would not have known who was getting the cash and who wasn't, there was just a group of people called barristers who wore silly wigs and got all the public cash for reading a brief over breakfast, or got themselves on to an enquiry and spent 14 years raking it in. So the same with 'bankers'.

What is the point you are trying to make? Is it one about the incorrect use of terminology, or the issue of the cap taken off some people in the banking/financial sector?

Interesting use of terminology you have in "skilled risk takers". They are not paid to take risks, especially with other people's money, and it is possibly only the very high bonuses that encourage risk, rather than judgement, which is what they are actually paid for. Perhaps they should be called skilled gamblers, except gamblers can lose money as well as gain it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Well, my definition would be people who work for banks. I think we walk a difficult path if we put everyone who earns decent money in financial services in the 'bankers' pot and make them the duty bogey men.

Dig down a level and you recognise people working in banks in the high street as clerks, advisers managers etc. It would be clear to a blind man on a galloping horse that, while their incomes may be supplemented by commission they're not the people taking risks with our money that fomented the 2007/8 crisis.

 

[Bromptonaut]

What is the point you are trying to make? Is it one about the incorrect use of terminology, or the issue of the cap taken off some people in the banking/financial sector?

That.

Exactly.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well, my definition would be people who work for banks. I think we walk a difficult path if we put everyone who earns decent money in financial services in the 'bankers' pot and make them the duty bogey men.

We also have the 'energy companies' in the frame at the moment, if you ask people who they are you will be told, most likely, whoever the persons energy supplier is. Octopus energy etc make very little money, but they are seen as an 'energy company'. Shell, BP, Gazprom etc are making the money, not the individual suppliers.

It may be understandable shorthand for you clever people on here, but not everyone will get the nuance in the way you all seem to do, and people who work in banks will quickly become bankers. Oh, and if you don't believe me that some people don't get difference and nuance......

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

As theclaud says it is clear you know the difference between the person who works on a call desk for Barclays and a senior investment banker/trader. You are not fooled and neither is "Joe Public" despite your specious and condescending attempt to compare them to the handful of idiots with little grasp of spelling 22 years ago.

You attempt to muddy the water over the actual issue of imo excessively high bonuses by deflecting the debate to one of definitions understood by "Joe Public".

Energy companies can include not just the prime suppliers but also the distributors, and it is only recent raw energy price increases have led to the problems for companies like Octopus who are basically market traders...usually buy cheap, sell expensive, but that model kicked them up the backside.