Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Nhs Bosses See Their Bonus Pot Double In 5 Years ... As Staff Face Cuts

Recommended Posts

Well according to this theory pay is not a motivating factor- which confirms my point. We don't offer nuclear power workers bonus's for not causing accidents because we recognise that these people are not motivated in that way- they operate on a more principled level and derive their job satisfaction from taking pride in their work.

It's only the managerial classes that seem to suffer from an 'integrity deficit' which needs to be offset by large cash bribes based on performance.

If lack of job satisfaction were to be seriously correlated to pay and bonus's then sewer workers would be the big earners in our society, while those who sit in air conditioned offices holding meetings would be paid a lot less than they are now.

The metric that determines pay and bonus's is not that of job satisfaction, it is that of power: those who can get away with paying themselves huge sums will do so- all the half baked claims about 'motivation' are simply a moral figleaf designed to provide a gloss of respectability over what is nothing more than opportunistic looting.

no, it's because the jobs you are pointing at don't carry bankrupcy and jail time for getting it wrong or not observing some random and arbitary legislation

The more legislation there is, the higher pay will be for he very top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty simple - people like yourself have cried like babies for more regulation, which means more danger for executives. Therefore they need paying more to take the risk on.

The modern executive is basically an expert on dealing with the state and avoiding going to jail/losing the whole business for minor infractions of some arbitary and continually changing code.

There is also the fact that they are the ones who get to allocate rewards, and everyone who gets to allocate rewards wants to keep them for themselves. All that's needed after that is some excuse for retention.

My first point creates the market demand, however and is why this behaviour is relatively modern.

Danger for executives? That's a joke right? We have just seen the meltdown of the world financial system- a failure of corporate leadership on a truly epic scale. Yet we have seen almost no consequences for the people who ran those organisations.

When does the man at the top ever take a hit when things go wrong?

You are making the same error Greenspan made in thinking that these people have any kind of commitment to the organisations that employ them, they don't- that's precisely why they have to be bribed to do their jobs properly. If they had any integrity such bribes would not be required.

My point was that many people perform mission critical tasks without the need for large cash bribes- is it unreasonable to expect the same from the people who run our largest businesses. Pay them well by all means, but to be compelled to then offer cash bribes on top? What's that about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it's because the jobs you are pointing at don't carry bankrupcy and jail time for getting it wrong or not observing some random and arbitary legislation

The more legislation there is, the higher pay will be for he very top.

legislation made by themselves you mean? or at least their pals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danger for executives? That's a joke right? We have just seen the meltdown of the world financial system- a failure of corporate leadership on a truly epic scale. Yet we have seen almost no consequences for the people who ran those organisations.

You missed my point - there are consequences, MASSIVE ones for not following the regulations that lefties have foisted n the workplace in the vain hope of reducing pay.

When does the man at the top ever take a hit when things go wrong?

When he doesn't have every I dotted and T crossed on hsi regulatory mandated froms. Then it's chokey.

You are making the same error Greenspan made in thinking that these people have any kind of commitment to the organisations that employ them, they don't- that's precisely why they have to be bribed to do their jobs properly. If they had any integrity such bribes would not be required.

My point was that many people perform mission critical tasks without the need for large cash bribes- is it unreasonable to expect the same from the people who run our largest businesses. Pay them well by all means, but to be compelled to then offer cash bribes on top? What's that about?

It's pay for risk taking. If you ****** up when dealing with the state you can lose everything and spend years being raped/assaulted in a small box by more serious and actual criminals.

Imagine the head of BP didn't file his companies taxes right. Would he be punished? ****** yes he would. The state doesn't care aout the environment though, so he can leak oil everywhere all day long - and nowt will happen to him because it's a nice plausible excuse to levy a fine and the statsist would like that to happen over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, it's because the jobs you are pointing at don't carry bankrupcy and jail time for getting it wrong or not observing some random and arbitary legislation

The more legislation there is, the higher pay will be for he very top.

You have a surprisingly starry eyed view of these people, and a wildly exaggerated notion of both their personal liability and engagement with their employers.

The one thing the banking crisis made clear is that high bonus's and corporate responsibility are if anything dichotomous- waving vast sums in front of people is not a way to ensure the long term survival of the company if that long term gets in the way of the money on offer

So again we have to ask why highly paid professionals in management require cash bribes that people in equally mission critical jobs- like nuclear power workers- do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a surprisingly starry eyed view of these people, and a wildly exaggerated notion of both their personal liability and engagement with their employers.

The one thing the banking crisis made clear is that high bonus's and corporate responsibility are if anything dichotomous- waving vast sums in front of people is not a way to ensure the long term survival of the company if that long term gets in the way of the money on offer

So again we have to ask why highly paid professionals in management require cash bribes that people in equally mission critical jobs- like nuclear power workers- do not.

Erm you are wrong.

The banking crisis proves absolutely thast having people who can influence the state in your favour is absolutely essential in the modern marketplace and is more important than pretty nearly anything else.

The more legislation that is applied, the fewer people who can navigate it, the rarer they become and the more highly they get paid.

NONE of the baks would now exist if they weren't very good at navigating the states waters. Those waters are full of sharks put there by cetins who think it will help the average swimmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed my point - there are consequences, MASSIVE ones for not following the regulations that lefties have foisted n the workplace in the vain hope of reducing pay.

You missed mine- if I have made enough f*ck you money not to give a shite then your regulations mean nothing to me. :lol:

Do you think Fred the Shred lays wake at night worrying about the fact that he took down RBS?

So shovelling huge sums into the bank accounts of executives is not going to increase corporate responsibility it it? If anything it's going to incentivise more risk taking and corner cutting to make sure the bonus's keep on coming.

If these guys had any kind of professional integrity we wouldn't need to bribe them to do their jobs in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed mine- if I have made enough f*ck you money not to give a shite then your regulations mean nothing to me. :lol:

Do you think Fred the Shred lays wake at night worrying about the fact that he took down RBS?

not in the slightes. Do you think he would worry if he hadn't followed the states regulations perfectly and could be found out?

So shovelling huge sums into the bank accounts of executives is not going to increase corporate responsibility it it? If anything it's going to incentivise more risk taking and corner cutting to make sure the bonus's keep on coming.

It does increase responsibility to the state.

If these guys had any kind of professional integrity we wouldn't need to bribe them to do their jobs in the first place.

They need paying to negotiate the highly risky state paradigm. That's their job. For some reason you think their job has something to do with providing a service to customers. Wakey wakey! Watch what the modern high flying exec actually has to do - be balls deep into his relevent legislator and regulator. While those guys are kept sweet, all is well, when those guys are pissed off, people go to prison and lose everything. ******ing up at the customer level no one cares about - and why would they? Every ****** up has morons begging the state to do even more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm you are wrong.

The banking crisis proves absolutely thast having people who can influence the state in your favour is absolutely essential in the modern marketplace and is more important than pretty nearly anything else.

The more legislation that is applied, the fewer people who can navigate it, the rarer they become and the more highly they get paid.

NONE of the baks would now exist if they weren't very good at navigating the states waters. Those waters are full of sharks put there by cetins who think it will help the average swimmer.

Again you assume a mindset that manifestly did not exist. The players in the financial crisis were not skilled navigators on the regulatory ocean acting in the interests of their institutions and the law, they were pirates intent on evading those regulations to enhance their own personal wealth.

These people did not pause to ask why the regulations were there- they cared only about breaking or circumventing them.

To portray these people as ultra competent gaurdians and enforcers of the regulatory structure is comic fantasy.

In this case even you must surely admit that the state and its regulations were not the villain of the piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They need paying to negotiate the highly risky state paradigm. That's their job. For some reason you think their job has something to do with providing a service to customers. Wakey wakey! Watch what the modern high flying exec actually has to do - be balls deep into his relevent legislator and regulator. While those guys are kept sweet, all is well, when those guys are pissed off, people go to prison and lose everything. ******ing up at the customer level no one cares about - and why would they? Every ****** up has morons begging the state to do even more!

You seem to think they care about their job in the first place- why is that? All the evidence suggests this is not true. If they did care about the organisations they headed up they would not require bribes in the first place.

If a policeman demanded a bribe to overlook a motoring offence that tells you something about his relationship to the moral dimensions of his job role. If an executive demands a bribe to do his job that too tells you something about his relationship to the moral dimensions of his job role.

Both are forms of corruption if integrity is an assumed prerequisite of the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you assume a mindset that manifestly did not exist. The players in the financial crisis were not skilled navigators on the regulatory ocean acting in the interests of their institutions and the law, they were pirates intent on evading those regulations to enhance their own personal wealth.

Which they could only do if they dot every i and cross every t.

These people did not pause to ask why the regulations were there- they cared only about breaking or circumventing them.

They haven't broken any of them. They arranged for hem to work in their favour - cheered on by idiots who think the law can ever achieve anything good. Fractional reserve banking is legal.

To portray these people as ultra competent gaurdians and enforcers of the regulatory structure is comic fantasy.

In this case even you must surely admit that the state and its regulations were not the villain of the piece.

of course they were. No regulations in banking = no big banks = no central banks = no HPI = no crash.

The captains of industry love the regulations - they are the primary way to keep competition low and salaries high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think they care about their job in the first place- why is that? All the evidence suggests this is not true. If they did care about the organisations they headed up they would not require bribes in the first place.

it's just the going market rate for the sort of sociopath who can navigate this market.

If a policeman demanded a bribe to overlook a motoring offence that tells you something about his relationship to the moral dimensions of his job role. If an executive demands a bribe to do his job that too tells you something about his relationship to the moral dimensions of his job role.

Both are forms of corruption if integrity is an assumed prerequisite of the job.

The police are bribed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which they could only do if they dot every i and cross every t.

That's really funny- are you familiar with MERS? An entity without any legal standing whatsover that tried to swallow an entire galaxy of undotted 'I's and 'T's and is now attempting disgorge them, with farcical results.

They haven't broken any of them. They arranged for hem to work in their favour - cheered on by idiots who think the law can ever achieve anything good. Fractional reserve banking is legal.

I didn't say they broke them, just that they evaded them- with no regard for their reason or purpose.

of course they were. No regulations in banking = no big banks = no central banks = no HPI = no crash.

But the regulations were not the cause of the failure of the regulations- that was engineered by those who chose to evade their purpose and intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really funny- are you familiar with MERS? An entity without any legal standing whatsover that tried to swallow an entire galaxy of undotted 'I's and 'T's and is now attempting disgorge them, with farcical results.

Uh huh. And the total convictions for this are going to be zero. This is why bank presidents get so highly paid, as I said.

I didn't say they broke them, just that they evaded them- with no regard for their reason or purpose.

Been many convictions, have there?

Or will it all be retroactively made okay because someoen had the foresight to pay excellent wages to get someone to do something incredibly risky but ultimately rewarding if it paid off?

But the regulations were not the cause of the failure of the regulations- that was engineered by those who chose to evade their purpose and intent.

No, the regulations are there to keep others out and therefore wages in the market high.

:)

If you want lower pay for executives, you need less regulation and less power for regulators - end of story.

The pool of available peopel with the right talents, mindest, background, expertise and knowledge to run these things is tiny. We are talking a pool of maybe a few thousand who went to the right schools for a start. And while there is so much regulation and risk, those wages will remain high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting nonsense with some fantastic logical leaps applied with an excitingly broad brush.

If you actually have a real interest in what motivates people, at least have a think about how different jobs provide different motivations to different degrees for different people.

At the very least read up on the two factor theory.

I was about to launch into some obvious criticisms of two factor theory as presented in that article but I see they have already been made:

While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded' date=' satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally[who?'] no longer considered to exist on separate scales. The separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record events.[6]

It's pretty obvious that satisfaction and dissatisfaction don't exist on separate scales. If he wanted separate scales he should perhaps have come up with words that weren't direct antonyms.

It's also pretty obvious that you can't rely on simply asking people about particularly satisfying or dissatisfying times in their job and what they think led to those feelings. Why should we expect these outlying incidents to accurately reflect their general experience of the job? Indeed, is there any evidence that people are particularly good at identifying why they feel dissatisfied or satisfied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty simple - people like yourself have cried like babies for more regulation, which means more danger for executives. Therefore they need paying more to take the risk on.

:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pool of available peopel with the right talents, mindest, background, expertise and knowledge to run these things is tiny. We are talking a pool of maybe a few thousand who went to the right schools for a start. And while there is so much regulation and risk, those wages will remain high.

Lame-brained logic as usual, of course.

A necessary consequence of the increased risk that Injin is wittering about is reduced risk-adjusted returns (otherwise there isn't really any increased risk.) In other words he is saying that the high returns are just a compensation for higher risk.

Given that returns are historically high for these executives, and the risk is zero (of convictions, according to Injin, down to these people's sheer talent apparently :lol: ) then the risk adjusted returns are actually through the roof.

So once again we may proceed to the logical conclusion:

Injin is a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame-brained logic as usual, of course.

A necessary consequence of the increased risk that Injin is wittering about is reduced risk-adjusted returns (otherwise there isn't really any increased risk.) In other words he is saying that the high returns are just a compensation for higher risk.

Given that returns are historically high for these executives, and the risk is zero (of convictions, according to Injin, down to these people's sheer talent apparently :lol: ) then the risk adjusted returns are actually through the roof.

So once again we may proceed to the logical conclusion:

Injin is a moron.

nono

They are paid because the risk is zero to them.

They can't be replaced easily. Hence the sky high wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't be replaced easily. Hence the sky high wages.

You are confusing the monkey with organ here I think. The power lies less in the individual than in the role and the power structure that embodies it.- the individuals can and do change, but the power dynamic remains. Thus Fred Goodwin today has far less influence than he did as the head of RBS, despite the fact that his level of innate 'talent' is I assume unchanged.

You are buying into the 'rare talent' meme here I fear.

Also this resolute attempt to shift the responsibility onto the 'state' is exactly the kind of statist thinking you normally deplore.

In seeking to present all human folly as state induced are you not advocating exactly the kind of abdication of individual responsibility you claim is wrong headed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without reading the argument, injin, do you consider there to be a difference between the state (public) and individual (private) sector?

other than imbalances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without reading the argument, injin, do you consider there to be a difference between the state (public) and individual (private) sector?

other than imbalances.

No.

I consider there to be a difference between free markets and coerced ones, however. The key thing is always if the end consumer can refuse without getting attacked and jailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing the monkey with organ here I think. The power lies less in the individual than in the role and the power structure that embodies it.- the individuals can and do change, but the power dynamic remains. Thus Fred Goodwin today has far less influence than he did as the head of RBS, despite the fact that his level of innate 'talent' is I assume unchanged.

You are buying into the 'rare talent' meme here I fear.

Also this resolute attempt to shift the responsibility onto the 'state' is exactly the kind of statist thinking you normally deplore.

In seeking to present all human folly as state induced are you not advocating exactly the kind of abdication of individual responsibility you claim is wrong headed?

The amount of people who other players at the top of the pyramid will let in is incredibly small - same schools, same families, same backgrounds etc etc

But the pyramid was created by idiots crying for regulation and state control of markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we expect these outlying incidents to accurately reflect their general experience of the job? Indeed, is there any evidence that people are particularly good at identifying why they feel dissatisfied or satisfied?

This would be my first nomination for the 'Golden [0ck 2011 award. Another rock somewhere is missing an underling :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of Labour's NHS budget found it's way into BTL via massive GP salary increases? My GP has 3 houses.

"typical borrower is a GP with two or three buy-to-let properties, said that it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they were less likely to default."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article6993169.ece

If I owned a bank and was lending to people for houses I would much rather lend to people like GP's who already had a BTL portfolio.. than to first time buyers.

1 - Someone who has been in BTL for a long time will have huge equity from previous house price appreciation, so no danger of losing my money.

2 - Someone like GP has a very large stable income from the state. Whereas even a successful private businessman, like a developer, the fortunes can change with the market.

3 - Financing BTL is much more financing capital than someone buying a home for personal use. The BTL'er will use the house itself to pay off the loan. Sort of like buying a piece of heavy equipment on credit, you use the equipment to pay off the loan. Whereas an individual buying a home, has to go out and get money from somewhere else in the economy to pay the mortgage.

4 - One BTLer can have many mortgages.. like I've seen ones with 10 or more mortgages. You need far less clients to deal with, instead of chasing a bunch of people in the market. Just have a few big players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the bonus issue. On the one hand I see wunderpup's point and Edward Deming makes the point that they dont' really work. However I like the idea of a company being able to share some of the profits in a good year.. without locking the company in to a higher salary in future years.

For example Honda gives a bonus to employees in good years, and it can be quite substantial, like in 2007.

I guess I support 'bonuses' but no for hitting certain targets.. just when the company is doing well, and wants to give a reward to its workers without locking it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.