Well, since theres much off topic related to the election ...
On the news this morning, a high up bod in RBS agreed top investment
bankers pay is rather hard to justify, but he said that is the market
- a shortage of top bankers. He said the banks have to pay the high
salaries else the bankers will leave. He implied that when one of
these guys moves job he takes with him lots of business or clients. If
that is the case, its understandable why they will pay to much - the
wage gets them a banker AND lots of clients.
1. Why do market forces not appear to work in this case to bring in
lots of other "top bankers" so pay levels come down ? Are the skills
really that rare ? Is there some distortion to the market, intentional
or otherwise ?
2. If they will leave where will they go ? If US (obama is trying) and
EU act together will they all go to the east ? Or just not bother to
work at all ?
No the shortage principle only works for us proles it seems. I once ran
a youth training centre and had trouble getting really good staff at the
salary offered. 'Do you get applicants?' was the reply from government.
'Yes'. 'No problem then'. I suggested that the same principle might be
applied to ministers' salaries. Null points!
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:14:17 -0700 (PDT), sm_jamieson
The financial services industry already takes most of Britain's
brightest people as they leave university. Unless you think there are
a lot of extremely bright people not going to university that you
could encourage to go, how would you increase the supply of top
graduates with the necessary literacy, numeracy and problem-solving
The other day I heard a professor of engineering at one of Britain's
top universities bemoaning the fact that the majority of his
engineering graduates who gain First or Upper Second Class degrees
don't choose engineering careers, but go to work in the City instead.
Apparently, their mix of abilities in numeracy and problem-solving is
incredibly attractive to employers in the financial services industry.
And the engineering graduates are apparently happy to go there to work
because their starting salaries are at least double what they would
get in engineering.
Unfortunately, this means that the engineering professions are denied
many of the best people. If you want to know why the UK manufacturing
sector has rapidly shrunk while the financial services industry has
hugely expanded, look no further.
I was told by a city slicker that "it helps to be as thick as pig shit
to work in the City". Anyone of a more sensitive disposition would a)
not sleep at night and b) not be able to look at himself in the mirror
The financial services industry attracts the greediest, rather than the
brightest, people. Lawd Sugar (or whatever he calls himself) personifies
what we in this broken backwater of a country regard as "business".
As a fully qualified degree level engineer, I can utterly concur with
I never was paid a living wage until I paid myself one, by learning how
money works and starting my own businesses.
As long as the country could make more by financial engineering (=smart
bullshit) it didn't need engineering. It could import that. See the result.
Not true. Whilst the city does favour good graduates from highly
numerate disciplines, particularly from the Russell Group of
universities, it's only a small proportion (probably around 5%) that
go to the city.
And a lot don't last - I can think of several friends that have either
left or want to - saying the money just isn't worth what they have to
put up with.
Imperial by any chance?
Again I would dispute that very many go to the city, the culture
change from engineering to banking really doesn't suit most people
that choose engineering at university.
If the city has an under-supply of top talent - in spite of offering
vastly greater financial rewards than other sectors - then they need
to look at working conditions, their culture, how people are treated,
and what they need to do in order to attract people for whom personal
greed is not the biggest thing in their lives.
There's plenty of extremely bright and suitable people that choose
engineering or science research in indusrty, medicine, government
research centres, teaching or university lecturing - phenomenally
talented, reasonably well paid in most cases, but not excessively so -
and without money as the overriding motivation in their lives.
It varies. FX spot traders tend towards the barrow boy end of the spectrum,
whereas the average quant or options trader may well have a numerate degree.
And of course, not everyone you see on the telly on a trading floor is a
trader, or on a trader's money.
Today is Setting Orange, the 47th day of Discord in the YOLD 3176
It's pretty simple really. If I put a billion on Chelsea to win the
Premier League, and you put a billion on Man Utd, one of us will be
hailed as a successful investor and the other will retire to the Cote
d'Azur on his golden handshake.
Just a guess, but presumably because they would say "I'm not signing
that, I'll look for a bank with better Ts&Cs". The same must happen with
Chief Exec jobs at local authorities and other so-called "public" sector
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
The whole scam is like house prices and petrol prices. They are kept high.
If you notice, as soon as one of the supermarkets decide to start a petrol
price war, everyone drops and they don't seem to go out of business. Round
here there are lots of people trying to sell houses that have been on the
market for a very long time. But noone wants to drop the price. As soon a a
few do, that's it - the market will shift. The law of supply and demand
seems to have a 3rd variable: illusory worth. If the illusory worth is
high, noone will sell anything for less even if there is plenty of demand
at a lower price. Crazy.
Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
Because on the whole they're not worth the paper they're written on.
There's a basic human rights principle (not sure if it's written down,
so can't quote chapter and verse) that you can't contractually prevent
someone from earning a living. This principle effectively overrides many
aspects of non-competition clauses. All the employee has to do is argue
that (during the period of the clause) they needed the money and banking
was the only skill-set they had which they could leverage to make money.
In terms of not poaching clients, all the employee has to do is tell his
clients he's leaving and how to keep in touch (nothing wrong with that,
could be for personal/social reasons) and the clients will choose to
stay with the old bank or move with the banker to the new bank. As long
as the old bank can't prove that the ex-employee induced his/her clients
to move or slandered/libelled the old employer, then there's no problem.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.